C.D. Appeal No. 521 of 1999. Case: Dy. Director of Agriculture Vs Narottam Patra. Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberC.D. Appeal No. 521 of 1999
CounselFor Appellant: T. Rath, A.S.C. and For Respondents: B. Mishra and Associates, Advocates
JudgesR.N. Biswal, J. (President) and S. Mohanty, Member
IssueConsumer Law
CitationIII (2014) CPJ 94
Judgement DateMay 30, 2014
CourtHimachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


R.N. Biswal, J. (President)

  1. Challenge is made in this appeal to the order dated 8.6.1999 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Keonjhar (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in CD. Case No. 152 of 1997 wherein it made jointly and severally liable to the appellant and proforma respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to pay the respondent Rs. 37,800 towards loss sustained by him and Rs. 100 towards cost of litigation within 30 days of passing of the order. Appellant was opposite party No. 2, respondent No. 1 was complainant and proforma respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were opposite parties 3 and 1 respectively before the District Forum.

  2. The case of the complainant briefly stated is that in the year 1997, he purchased 6 bags of Hybrid seeds No. 6201 on payment of Rs. 1,080 from the Hatadihi Block of Keonjhar district. He cultivated the paddy seeds in his 3 acres of land and applied fertilizer, pesticides and medicines in due process and thereby spent Rs. 6,636. He also spent Rs. 11,820 towards labour charge. He was regularly getting his paddy crops inspected by the Government Agriculture Officers. He got 12 quintals of paddy per acre of land as against 40 quintals as per the advertisement of Government. He sustained loss of 28 quintals of paddy per acre valued at about Rs. 12,600 at the rate of Rs. 450 per quintal as per the then prevailing Govt. price. In 3 acres of land, he sustained loss of Rs. 37,800. So, he filed the aforesaid C.D. Case with prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay him Rs. 37,800 excluding the cost of seeds towards the loss sustained by him and for any other relief.

  3. Opposite party No. 1 in its written version admitted that during the relevant period, he was posted as Assistant Agriculture Officer, Hatadihi and regularly visited and inspected the crops of the complainant. But he is not able to recollect the details of his visit and suggestions given by him to the complainant. According to him, there was no deficiency of service on his part and as such, he prayed to dismiss the CD. Case against him.

    On being noticed, opposite party No. 2 filed written version admitting that the complainant had purchased 6 bags of Hybrid seeds No. 6201 for a consideration of Rs. 1,080 from Hatadihi Block of Keonjhar district. But as per the complaint, he could not get yield as per the advertisement It is the specific case of this answering opposite party that by simply applying fertilizer and pesticides one...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT