Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member
T. Nagaiah —Appellant
Versus
M/s. Jain Irrigation Systems Pvt.
Ltd. & 3 Ors. —Respondents
First Appeal No. 163 of 2014
(Against the Order dated 02/01/2014 in Complaint No. 4/2004 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
Decided on 17.8.2020
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant :Mr. B. Shravanth Shanker, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. Sandeep Narain, Advocate
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. B V V Satyanarayana- Pioneer;
Drip System: In person
For the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4: Nemo (served)
IMPORTANT POINT
Even if one does not consider present complaint as filed under Section 12 (1)(C) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, present complaint can definitely be considered as filed by complainant in his own capacity.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 12(1)(c)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019—Section 35(1)(c)]—Joint complaint—Locus Standi—Complainant is one of farmers who combined themselves for joint project for raising annatto crop—There was annatto crop planted in field of complainant which was found damaged by Horticulture Officer—Complainant had suffered loss due to damage to annatto crop, due to failure of drip irrigation system though there have been some other reasons also for damage to crop—Even if one does not consider present complaint as filed under Section 12 (1)(C) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, present complaint can definitely be considered as filed by complainant in his own capacity—Order passed by State Commission set aside—Respondent Nos.1 and 2 directed jointly and severely to pay Rs.20,000/- to complainant along with 6% interest; to deposit Rs.1,80,000/- with State Consumer Welfare Fund along with 6% interest; to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to complainant along with 6% interest and to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation to complainant.
Held: This clause of the agreement reveals that the power of attorney has been given for the deeds and acts which are warranted in the overall implementation of the project and to pursue the farming. Clearly, the implementation of the project warranted that the damaged irrigation system should be repaired or replaced or the project be compensated and for that matter, complainant was impliedly authorised to pursue for repair/refund from the respondent nos.1 & 2, but when it came to filing of the complaint under a particular Act and in this particular case, the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, then the requirements of the Act are also to be fulfilled. Under Section 12A individual complaint can be filed and in 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 joint complaint can be filed by any one complainant, however, in that situation, permission is required to be taken from the consumer forum, which has not been obtained in the present case. Thus, in my view, the complainant was not authorised to file the complaint on behalf of other farmers. It is not disputed that the complainant is one of the farmers who combined themselves for the joint project for raising annatto crop. In the agreement, it is mentioned that he has given 8 acres of land and his wife has given 10 acres of land. Thus, in total 18 acres of land has been given by the complainant including his wife. The observation of the learned State Commission that the complainant has not grown annatto crop, seems to be unfounded because the report of the Horticulture Officer dated 29.07.2003 has indicated that the Horticulture Officer inspected the damaged crop of annatto plantation.
From the above observations of the Horticulture Officer, it seems that there was annatto crop planted in the field of the complainant, which was found damaged by the Horticulture Officer. Horticulture Officer has not clearly stated that the crops were damaged by leakage of water through cracks which developed in the pipes of drip irrigation system, rather he has also stated that the complainant neglected the plant protection measures for saving the crop.
From the above it is also clear that the drip irrigation was not functioning from the year 2003 and the crop had suffered badly because of this reason. It is thus clear that the complainant had suffered loss due to damage to annatto crop, due to failure of the drip irrigation system though there have been some other reasons also for damage to the crop. Clearly, the services of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have been deficient because the normal expected life of the pipes of drip irrigation is 10 years as per BIS standard though the opposite parties have given the warranty of only three years even after claiming the pips to be of BIS standard. Even if one does not consider the present complaint as filed under Section 12 (1)(C) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the present complaint can definitely be considered as filed by the complainant in his own capacity. From this perspective, the complainant and his wife have contributed 18 acres of land to the project, which is about 1/4th of the project land. Thus, even by considering the present complaint as filed by the complainant only, the complainant is entitled to get compensation for loss suffered by him and his wife. As drip irrigation system did not work for the expected life, the opposite parties No.1 & 2/ respondent Nos.1 & 2 are jointly responsible for refunding 1/4th of the cost of irrigation system. As the total cost of the system is Rs.8,08,000/-, which was partly paid by the complainant on behalf of the project farmers and largely paid by the Government of Andha Pradesh by means of subsidy. The report of the Horticulture Officer clarifies that the amount of subsidy was 90%. Thus, opposite parties Nos.1 & 2/respondent Nos.1 & 2 are required to refund Rs.2,00,000/-, which is 1/4th of the total cost of the irrigation system. Out of this Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.20,000/- is to be refunded to the complainant and Rs.1,80,000/- is to be refunded to the State Government. As it will be difficult to refund the amount in the Government Exchequer, it is directed that the amount of Rs.1,80,000/- be deposited with the State Consumer Welfare Fund.
Though the complainant has claimed about Rs.60,00,000/- for loss to the whole project, but for his own land of 18 acres, he can only claim about 1/4th which will be Rs.15,00,000/-. The reports of the Horticulture Officer and the Assistant Director of Horticulture have clarified that the complainant has not taken up inter-cultural operations and plant protection measures properly and therefore, the total loss of crop cannot be attributed to the failure of the irrigation system. However, it is clear from the report of the Assistant Director Horticulture dated 10.06.2005 that the damage to the drip irrigation system has played havoc with the crop. The complainant has stated in the complaint that the cost of cultivation is about Rs.17,000 per acre and thus, the cost of cultivation for 18 acres comes to about Rs.3,00,000. Accordingly, treating the contribution of damage to irrigation system as 2/3 of the loss of cost of cultivation, the complainant deserves a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the cost of cultivation even if any profit is left out.
On the basis of the above discussion, the First Appeal No.163 of 2014 is partly allowed and the order dated 02.01.2014 passed by the State Commission in CD No.04 of 2004 is set aside. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed jointly and severely to;1. pay Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand only) to the complainant along with interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till actual payment. (Paras 14, 15, 17, 18 and 19)
Result: Appeal Partly allowed.
ORDER
Prem Narain, Presiding Member—This appeal has been filed by the appellant T. Nagaiah challenging the order dated 02.01.2014 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh, (in short ‘the State Commission’) in CD No.04 of 2004.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant/complainant entered into a joint farming agreement with some other farmers dated 12.03.1998 for taking up annatto crop in 70 acres of land of these farmers including 8 acres of the complainant and 10 acres land of wife of the complainant. For the project, the complainant was authorised by other farmers by way of General Power of Attorney to pursue all the matters for the implementation of the project. The appellant approached the respondent no.2, Pioneer Drip System Ltd. They installed the drip irrigation system manufactured by respondent no. 1, Jain Irrigation Pvt. Ltd. in the total area of about 70 acres in November- December 1998. In the year 2003, it was noted by the complainant that certain pipes of the drip irrigation system developed cracks and water got leaked and consequently the crop died due to shortage of water. The complainant then filed a consumer complaint before the State Commission. The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties by filing the written statement. The objections were raised in respect of General Power of Attorney in favour of the complainant and on the maintainability of the complaint. The State commission vide its order dated 13.03.2007 allowed the complaint and directed respondent No.1/manufacturer to pay Rs.26,25,000/- @ Rs.75,000/- per acre for 35 acres. Aggrieved by this order, respondent No.1 preferred an appeal no.392 of 2007 before this Commission and this Commission remanded the matter to the State Commission vide its order dated 16.10.2012 for deciding the complaint afresh after providing both the parties to lead evidence in their support. The State Commission has now dismissed the complaint vide its order dated 02.01.2014.
3. Hence the present appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 in person. Respondent Nos.3 & 4 did not appear even after service of notice. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant stated that the State Commission was not correct in dismissing the complaint on the ground of maintainability because the complainant has filed the agreement for joint forming dated 12.03.1998 wherein under para 10 of the agreement, the complainant has been authorised to pursue all the matters pertaining to the project. Hence, observation of the State Commission that “the contents of the agreement made it clear that the other farmers had not authorized the complainant to file and prosecute the complaint before the commission or any court” is not correct. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a beneficial legislation enacted for the benefit of consumers and if there is any lacuna in the wordings of the document it should be interpreted in favour of the consumers for providing the substantive justice.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant further stated that this Commission vide its order dated 16.10.2012 remanded the matter to the State Commission for deciding the complaint afresh and permitted the parties to submit the additional evidence, if any. The State Commission instead of discussing about these points i.e. on warranty period, letter dated 16.01.2003 and any other legal issues to be raised by the parties, has dismissed the complaint holding that the present complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint on the basis of agreement for joint farming without going into the merits of the case.
6. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent no.1 misrepresented before this Commission stating that the dealership of Respondent No.2 was cancelled in the year 2000 whereas the same is contrary to the certificate issued by it. The certificate issued by Respondent N
