State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
. Asst. Agriculture Officer, At/P.O. ... vs Pakhad, Via Garadpur Dist. Kendrapara on 6 August, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA:CUTTACK STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA: CUTTACK C.D. APPEAL NO.312 OF 1998 From an order dated 11.03.1998 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kendrapara in C.D. Case No.161 of 1997 1. Asst. Agriculture Officer, At/P.O. Garadpur, Dist. Kendrapara 2. District Agriculture Officer, At/P.O./Dist. Kendrapara 3. Director of Agriculture, Orissa, Bhubaneswar Appellants -Versus- Narahari Sethi, At/P.O. Pakhad, Via Garadpur Dist. Kendrapara Respondent For the Appellants : Mr. P.K. Khuntia (A.G.A.) For the Respondent : Mr. P.K. Padhi & Associates P R E S E N T : THE HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K. SAMANTARAY, PRESIDENT A N D SHRI SUBASH MAHTAB, MEMBER O R D E R
DATE:-
The August, 2009.
Justice A.K. Samantaray, President.
This appeal is of the year 1998 and by means of this appeal the judgment and order dated 11.03.1998 passed by the District Forum, Kendrapara in C.D. Case No.161 of 1997 is under challenge. The appeal has been preferred by the Assistant Agriculture Officer, Garadpur, District Agriculture Officer, Kendrapara and Director of Agriculture, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, who were the opposite parties before the learned District Forum in the aforesaid consumer complaint filed by the complainant-respondent Narahari Sethi.
2. Respondent as the complainant filed the consumer complaint alleging that he is a member of the Scheduled Caste and is a small farmer. In June, 1997, as per the advice of the Assistant Agriculture Officer, Garadpur to raise high-breed paddy 6201, he purchased two bags of paddy seeds of 6201 variety by paying Rs.360/- and sowed the said paddy seeds on 06.07.1997. In the month of August, he applied fertilizers, i.e., 2.5 Kgs. of D.A.P. and 1.5 Kgs. of potas per gunth of land for transplantation. Thereafter he also applied urea and pesticides. Before flowering of the paddy plants, he had applied 1.00 Kg of potas per gunth. The paddy plants were well grown. By 1st October, 1997, flowering started.
In spite of favourable climatic condition and there being water in the paddy field, the yield was almost nil. The complainant thereafter filed the complaint before the District Forum, Kendrapara for appropriate investigation into the matter and payment of compensation for the loss sustained by him.
3. The opposite parties appeared through the Government Pleader, Kendrapara and filed written version. It was stated in the written version that the complaint is not maintainable as because paddy seeds were supplied to the complainant in a commercial transaction and on subsidy basis with loss to the Government for the purpose of high production of food grain under high-yield programme for the general benefit of the farmers. It was stated that the paddy seeds were purchased from various firms outside the State of Orissa by Orissa Seed Corporation and the opposite parties are only the distributors. The said Orissa Seed Corporation is a necessary party to the complaint, and in absence of the said party, the complaint is bound to fail. It was further stated that the farmers including the complainant were advised through leaflets as well as by special high-breed programme relating to farming under the Block on 28.08.1997, i.e., about the technical process and guidelines relating to use of seeds, process of cultivation, manuring, watering and application of pesticides. They were also advised to keep contact with the Field Officers under the District Agriculture Officer and were directed to follow the guidelines for the purpose of cultivation of the said variety of paddy. The District Agriculture Officer visited the village and the field of the complainant on 27.10.1997 and observed that although the plant condition was very good due to adoption of proper technical guidelines, as ascertained from the statement of the complainant, because of lack of managerial practices, i.e., non-application of nitrogenous fertilizers at the flowering stage and watering of the field, the crop position hampered. It is stated that as the complainant did not follow the guidelines for growing the new crop, for which leaflets were distributed and training in the Block Office was also held and the farmers were intimated to keep relationship with the Field Officers for proper guidance, his crop might have suffered. It is also stated that although many other farmers had adopted this cultivation of 6201 variety of paddy, none of them excepting the complainant had complained about the failure of the crop.
4. We have found on scrutiny of the L.C.R. that even before appearance of the opposite parties, the learned District Forum had wanted an Advocate as commissioner to visit the field of the complainant and the commissioner also noticed to the opposite parties and visited the field of the complainant. By then the paddy crop was not fully ripe. It appears from the report that in some portion of the field paddy was ready for harvest and in some portion there was flowering. In some other portion even there was no flowering. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that from these conditions in the crop position before the paddy was fully ripe and the field was ready for harvest, crop assessment could not be made and no conclusion could be arrived at to the effect that there was complete failure of crop and in the entire field there was chaff only.
5. Since the opposite parties controverted the claim of the complainant and submitted that if there was crop failure in the field of the complainant, that was due to his not following the guidelines and non-application of fertilizer and pesticides as per the direction given in the leaflet, it is very difficult to assess the loss of crop without leading evidence, and award of damages on the report of the commissioner is also unsafe as it might result in miscarriage of justice.
6. After carefully scrutinizing the L.C.R. and the evidence produced by both sides, we are of the view that there has been no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties are not the producers of the seed. The seed is procured by the Orissa State Seed Corporation and the opposite parties are only the means of distribution of the same to the farmers. It is for the farmers to adopt the high yielding process. The opposite parties cannot be held liable, if at all the seed supplied by them failed to give the desired result.
7. For the above reasons, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 11.03.1998 passed by the District Forum, Kendrapara in C.D. Case No.161 of 1997 and direct dismissal of the said C.D. Case.
Records received from the District Forum may be sent back forthwith.
.......
(Justice A.K. Samantaray) President ........
(Subash Mahtab) Member SCDRC, Orissa, Cuttack August ,2009/Nayak