DELIVERED BY SRI T. ANAND, M.A. LL.B., PRESIDENT ON BEHALF OF BENCH Complainant filed this complaint U/Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction to the opposite parties No.1 to 3 to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of Mango crop with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards costs of litigation.
2)The facts in brief as disclosed in the complaint are as follows:- The complainant is an agriculturist. He has Ac.3-93 cents of Mango garden in his village in S.No.585-2. Due to water problem, irrigation was affected and so, he wanted to switch over to drip irrigation. Opposite party No.1 who is authorized signatory. Opposite party No.2 is Project Director, APMIP, and Opposite party No.3 is District Collector, Chittoor. On the assurance given by Opposite parties No.1 and 2 that Government will give subsidy of 90% to farmers who are having
5 to 10 acres of land, the complainant agreed to purchase drip materials from Opposite party No.1. The cost of the material was estimated at Rs.1,60,000/- for the entire mango garden of the complainant. The complainant paid 10% out of total amount i.e., Rs.16,000/- through D.D. issued by Indian bank, Sodam Branch vide D.D.No.732400 dt:18.02.2016. Opposite party No.1 delivered drip materials, fittings, accessories worth Rs.92,962/- dt:12.04.2016 to complainant. Thereafter complainant completed trench work as per the markings made by opposite party No.1. It is alleged that opposite party No.1 failed to fit the drip materials in the mango garden, though trench work was completed. 90% of crop failure was due to lack of supply of water to mango garden. The complainant sustained loss to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. The complainant on several occasions, approached opposite parties No.1 and 2 from 12.04.2016 onwards and requested them to complete installation of drip materials in his mango garden, but no steps were taken by the opposite parties. The complainant underwent mental agony due to loss sustained on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
3) Opposite party No.1 filed separate written version by raising following contentions:- At the outset, the allegations made in the complaint are denied. The documents filed by complainant are false. It is false to say that opposite party No.1 delivered substandard quality of drip materials, fittings, accessories to complainant after receiving D.D. amount of Rs.16,000/-. It is further denied that the total cost of the material is Rs.92,962/-. It is further denied that at the time of delivering the material, the complainant raised mango crop. It is further denied that though complainant completed digging trenches in the field, opposite party No.1 failed to fit drip materials for irrigation of mango garden, and as such, the complainant sustained financial loss, as 90% of the crop was damaged. As per the guidelines of Government, opposite party No.1 supplied good quality of the material. It is denied that opposite parties No.1 and 2 failed to take necessary steps to fit the drip materials in the mango garden of the complainant, inspite of several requests made by complainant from 12.04.2016 onwards. Question of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties No.1 and 2 does not arise. The complainant did not approach this Forum with clean hands as there is suppression of material facts. The complainant is varying his version from time to time right from issuance of legal notice dt:20.07.2016 in order to gain wrongfully. The complainant is one of the beneficiaries under the Pradhana Mantri Krishi Yojana, a welfare scheme floated by Government of India. The State Government of A.P. is implementing the same. The A.P. Government entered MOU with 30 companies in order to implement the scheme and opposite party No.1 is one among them. Opposite party No.1 is discharging their duties from 2011 onward to the satisfaction of several thousands of farmers without any problem. As per G.O.Ms.No.34 of 2015, the farmers shall register through online for drip facility. The complainant also registered his name with one NETAFIME Company, but they refused to extend their services to the complainant. Then complainant approached opposite party No.2 and requested to provide drip in his garden basing on the said G.O. Opposite party No.1 came forward to fit the drip in mango garden, on the request made by opposite party No.2 as per prevailing terms and conditions which were explained to complainant. The cost of the drip material was also informed to complainant, for which he agreed. As per the demand of the farmer, the system cost (Material cost) was increased to Rs.81,599/- and incase of variance, the farmer / complainant is liable to pay the variance amount and in the instant case, the complainant agreed to pay variance amount of RS.8,710/- along with the guided cost i.e., 10% in Guided cost + Variation amount i.e., 7,289/- + Rs.8,710/- . Thus he agreed to pay Rs.16,000/- and obtained D.D. for the said amount on 18.02.2016 in favour of opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 has given marking in the mango garden of the complainant for digging trenches and delivered the material also. Believing that complainant will fulfill his part of contract i.e., digging of trenches at his own cost. But the complainant failed to perform his part of work and as such, the drip material could not be installed. The bill amount of Rs.92,962/- i.e., cost of the drip material supplied by opposite party NO.1 is still pending, due to failure on the part of complainant to complete digging of trenches. Opposite party NO.1 thus sustained financial loss. Infact, opposite party No.1 and his staff approached the complainant several times to request him to complete digging of trenches in the mango garden to enable them to complete the installation of drip material. At the time of delivery of material, the complainant never raised any objection with regard to the quality of material supplied. Even in the legal notice dt:20.07.2016, he did not raise anything regarding quality of pipes. The opposite party No.1 will complete the installation of drip material in a weeks time, if complainant completes digging of trenches. The complainant is not at all a consumer and therefore this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the case. There is no deficiency in service on their part and as such, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4)The contentions raised by opposite party No.2 are as follows: The complaint was filed for wrongful gain with an intention to harass the opposite parties. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2. The complainant unnecessarily levelled allegations against the Government. The complainant never sustained any loss. Nothing happened to his mango garden. The allegations relating to financial loss said to have been suffered by the complainant is imaginary. The opposite party inspected the field and conducted enquiry in the presence of the complainant and found that, there is no loss of crop or anything as claimed by the complainant. The drip system cannot be installed only due to non-digging of trenches by the complainant only, and there is no inaction on the part of opposite parties. The Government sanctioned subsidy schemes to benefit the Ryots. The complainant, instead of utilizing the same properly, filed this complaint with false allegations. It is the primary duty of the complainant to dug trenches within 10 days as stipulated by Administrative Sanction Authority for installation of drip system to the complainants mango garden. The complainant is unnecessarily throwing blame on the opposite parties without fulfilling his obligation of digging trenches. The complainant is not entitled for the benefit under the scheme, since he did not complete the digging of trenches within the stipulated time i.e., 10 days. The opposite parties are not liable to pay any damages or compensation to the complainant. The complainant approached the Forum with unclean hands and on this ground alone, the complaint is liable to be rejected. Therefore prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5) Complainant filed Chief affidavit as Pw-1 and marked documents Ex.A1 to A11. On behalf of opposite parties Sri.A.V.Sivareddy, Employee, Signet Industries Ltd., Vellore Road, Chittoor filed chief affidavit as Rw-1 and Sri.
V.S.Dharmaja, Project Director, APMIP, Chittoor filed chief affidavit as Rw-2 and marked documents Ex.B1 to B18. Both parties have filed their respective written arguments. Heard both sides.
6)The point for consideration is:- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant? If so, to what extent, the complainant is entitled for the relief sought in the complaint?
7)Point:- The contention of Pw-1 is that, he being owner of mango garden in an extent of Ac 3-93 cents situated in S.No.585-2 in his village, became beneficiary under Pradhana Mantri Krishi Yojana welfare scheme, having opted for drip system, and that an amount of Rs.16,000/- was paid in respect of availing benefit under the scheme. It is further contention of the complainant that, opposite party No.1 having delivered drip material, failed to install drip system in his mango garden, which resulted in crop failure and caused financial loss to an extent of Rs.2,00,000/-. The counsel for complainant further contended that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and as such, they are liable to compensate the complainant.
8) The contention of opposite parties is that as per the guidelines prescribed under the said scheme, the complainant has to dug trenches in the garden at the marking places given by opposite party No.1 and then only drip system could be installed. It is further contention of opposite parties that the complainant failed to dug trenches and as such, opposite party No.1 could not install drip system in the mango garden and therefore the question of deficiency in service on their part does not arise.
9) It is not in dispute that, complainant is the beneficiary under the welfare scheme viz: Pradhana Mantri Krishi Yojana being run by State Government. It is also not in dispute that the complainant paid Rs.16,000/- to opposite party No.2 under the scheme and received material worth Rs.92,100/-. Ex.A1 is the D.D. for Rs.16,000/- in favour of Project Director, APMIP, Chittoor. Ex.A2 is the Micro irrigation farmer registration receipt. Ex.A3 is the delivery note showing the cost of material delivered to Pw-1. Ex.A4 is the farmer application status online copy. Ex.A5 is advertisement relating to opposite party No.1. Ex.A6 is the newspaper item with regard to allegations regarding drip irrigation scheme published in Andhra Jyothi dt:03.08.2016. Ex.A7 is the legal notice issued by Pw-1 dt:20.07.2016 to opposite parties No.1 to 3 making allegations against them for not fitting the drip materials in mango garden as per the terms and conditions of the scheme. Ex.A8 is reply issued by opposite party No.2 to the Ex.A7 denying the allegations in Ex.A7. It is stated in Ex.A8 that, as per guidelines trenches have to be dug by farmers only. Ex.A9 are photos showing the garden with trenches. Ex.A10 is receipt issued by Reddy Electricals & Hardware, Sodum in favour of complainant stating that he received Rs.7,000/- from Pw-1 towards fitting drip material. There is no dispute with regard to Ex.A1 to A8. It is the contention of Pw-1 that due to failure of fitting drip material in mango garden as per the scheme, the complainant himself engaged private persons to fit the drip material in his garden by spending his own money. In order to prove that, he filed photos and receipt issued by Reddy Electricals & Hardware, Sodum. 10) On the other hand, opposite parties marked Ex.B1 which contains details of the cost towards fitting drip material in the garden. Ex.B2 is equivalent to Ex.A3 which is delivery note. Ex.B3 is the receipt issued by Pw-1 for receiving drip materials. Ex.B4 is field inspection report of Micro Irrigation Area Officer of Sodum Mandal to Project Director, APMIP, Chittoor dt:25.07.2016 wherein he stated that on the date of inspection, trenches are not dug by Pw-1 and the photos clearly shows that no trenches are in existence. Ex.B6 contains photos showing the drip material. Ex.B7 is guidelines for implementation of APMIP for the year 2015-16. As per guidelines it is clearly mentioned that beneficiary has to take up trench opening as per the design approved and marking given by the representative of MI Company (opposite party No.1 in this case) after receipt of sanction orders. Otherwise, the sanction will be deemed to have been cancelled. Further it is made clear in the guidelines that, the beneficiary who has not taken up the trench work, within the prescribed period, the beneficiary will loose the seniority and the trenches have to be dug by the beneficiary on his own cost within stipulated time. Ex.B8 is equivalent to Ex.A7. Ex.B9 is the reply given by opposite party No.1 to the complainant counsel dt:30.12.2016 denying the allegations made in the legal notice against opposite party No.1. It is stated in Ex.B9 that infact, due to attitude of complainant, opposite party No.1 sustained heavy loss, as bills could not be passed. Ex.B10 is the letter dt:09.12.2016 issued by opposite party No.1 to one K.Sahadeva Reddy (brother of the complainant) asking him to receive additional drip material for installing drip system in his land. This documents is filed to show that the said K.Sahadeva Reddy also dug trenches as per the guidelines of the scheme and informed the same to opposite party No.1 for taking further steps. Ex.B11 is the letter dt:09.12.2016 addressed in favour of one K.Raja Reddy (brother of the complainant) it is stated that, the trenches have been dug in his land, and the same was informed to opposite party No.1 for taking further action. Ex.B12 is also similar to Ex.B11 letter dt:09.12.2016 addressed in favour of one K.Narasimha Reddy (brother of the complainant ) and this document is filed to show that the said K.Narasimha Reddy also dug trenches as per the guidelines of the scheme and informed the same to opposite party No.1 for taking further steps. Ex.B13 is the online copy of track consignment. Ex.B14 is CD with photos showing the trenches in the land of brother of complainant. Ex.B15 is the G.O.Ms.No.21 dt:20.05.2015 relating to Micro irrigation project Guidelines for implementation of the scheme. Ex.B16 is the circular dt:16.09.2015 issued by Commissioner of Horticulture with regard to the Pradhana Mantri Krishi Yojana scheme for the year 2015-16 enclosing the guidelines. Ex.B17 is the field inspection report. Ex.B17 and B4 are equivalent documents. Ex.B18 is the proceedings extending the Pradhana Mantri Krishi Yojana benefit to Pw-1. 11) From the documentary evidence and written arguments and written version filed by both sides, and arguments advanced by both sides, the real controversory is with regard to digging trenches in the garden. The guidelines of the scheme is marked as Ex.B7. It is clearly stated that farmer who has not taken up to trench work within the prescribed period, he will loose seniority. It is the duty of the farmer to dug trenches on his own cost within the stipulated period. It is an admitted fact that pw-1 had received the drip material from opposite party No.1 as per Ex.A3 which is equivalent to Ex.B2. Having received the material, it is the duty of Pw-1 to dug trenches as per markings given by opposite party No.1. Admittedly no trenches were dug in the garden. The complainant therefore cannot contend that there is failure on the part of the opposite parties for not installing drip system in his garden. Even according to Ex.B4, Field inspection report, it is clearly stated that as on the date of inspection, no trenches were dug by Pw-1 in his garden. There is no evidence with regard to digging trenches by Pw-1 and made ready for fitting drip material in the garden by opposite party No.1. The opposite parties infact filed certain documents showing that even the brothers of complainant, for availing drip facility in their respective lands, dug trenches and informed the same to opposite party No.1 for taking necessary steps. The complainant also could have similarly followed them and informed the same to opposite party No.1, after digging trenches. It is quite clear that Pw-1 has not followed the guidelines. Hence it is not open for Pw-1 to contend that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 to 3, since he failed to perform his part of obligation arising under the guidelines. Accordingly, this point is answered against the complainant, holding that, he failed to establish deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, and hence not entitled for compensation. 12) In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs. Dictated to the stenographer and pronounced by us in the open Forum this the (10th) Tenth day of March, two thousand and Seventeen. Sd/- Sd/- Male Member President APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT ORAL EVIDENCE/AFFIDAVITS: PW-1:- Chief Affidavit of the complainant Sri. K.Raghava Reddy DOCUMENTS: Ex.A1:- Dt:18.02.2016 Bank DD for Rs.16,000/- paid by the complainant to the opposite parties. Ex.A2:- Dt:21.12.2015 APMIP farmer registration receipt. Ex.A3:- Dt:12.04.2016 Delivery note issued by Opposite party No.1 to the complainant. Ex.A4:- Dt:10.03.2016 Farmer application status online copy. Ex:A5:- opposite party No.1 advertisement pamphlet copy. Ex.A6:-Dt:03.08.2016 Andhra Jyothi daily newspaper. Ex.A7:- Dt:20.07.2016 Office copy of legal notice with postal receipts and acknowledgements of opposite parties 1 to 3. Ex.A8:- Dt:26.07.2016 Reply letter issued by 2nd opposite party to the complainant. Ex.A9:- Photographs (six) in number with C.D. Ex.A10:- Dt:10.01.2017 Receipt issued by Reddy Electricals & Hardware, Sodum. Ex.A11:- Dt:22.01.2017 Receipt issued by Ramanaiah. APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES ORAL EVIDENCE/AFFIDAVITS: Rw-1:- Chief affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties Sri. A.V.Sivareddy Employee, Signet Industries Ltd., Vellore Road, Chittoor Rw-2:- Chief affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties Sri.V.S.Dharmaja Project Director, APMIP, Chittoor DOCUMENTS: Ex.B1:- Dt:21.12.2015 Date of application and online bill of quantity. Ex.B2:-Dt:12.04.2016 Delivery note / Invoice about the value of material supplied to the complainant. Ex.B3:- Dt:21.04.2016 Acknowledgement issued and online bill of quantity. Ex.B4:- Dt:25.07.2016 Field inspection report of Micro Irrigation Area officer of Sodum Mandal to Project Director APMIP, Chittoor. Ex.B5:- Photographs of mango gardens of complainant to show no trenches. Ex.B6:- Two photographs to show that material placed in the open terrace of the complainant. Ex.B7:- Guidelines for implementation of APMIP for the year 2015-16. Ex.B8:- dt:12.12.2016 legal notice issued by K.Raja Reddy and others (brother complainant ) through his counsel. Ex.B9:- Dt:30.12.2016 Reply notice Ex.B10:- Dt:09.12.2016 Letter issued by A.V.Siva Reddy to K.Sahadeva Reddy (brother of complainant) Ex.B11:- Dt:09.12.2016 Letter issued by A.V.Siva Reddy to K.Raja Reddy (brother of complainant) Ex.B12:- Dt:09.12.2016 Letter issued by A.V.Siva Reddy to K.Narasimha Reddy (brother of complainant) Ex.B13:- Acknowledgment card issued by India Post Ex.B14:- Photos relating to installation of pipes (4) Ex.B15:- Copy of guidelines about drip system. Ex.B16:- Guidelines issued by Commissioner of Horticulture, Government of A.P. Ex.B17:- Dt:25.07.2016 The field inspection report. Ex.B18:- Dt:26.03.2016 Administrative sanction issued by the District Collector, Chittoor in favour of the complainant. Sd/- Sd/- Male Member President Free copies to:
1. The Complainant.
2. The Opposite Parties.
Comments