First Appeal No. 882 of 2013. Case: Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Limited (IFFCO) Vs Ram Swaroop. Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 882 of 2013
Party NameIndian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Limited (IFFCO) Vs Ram Swaroop
CounselFor Appellant: Mr. Rohit Goswami, Advocate and For Respondents: Party-in-Person
JudgesNawab Singh, J. (President), B.M. Bedi, Member (J) and Urvashi Agnihotri, Member
IssueConsumer Law
CitationI (2014) CPJ 279 (Har.)
Judgement DateJanuary 20, 2014
CourtHaryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Order:

Nawab Singh, J. (President)

  1. This appeal has been filed by Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Limited, Service Centre, Kalanwali (for short 'IFFCO') against the order dated October 24th, 2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa (for short 'District Forum') whereby, an amount of Rs. 42,000, was awarded to Ram Sawroop-complainant (respondent herein), on account of loss that occurred to his crop, Rs. 5,000 as compensation for harassment and Rs. 550 as litigation expenses. The amount awarded was to be paid within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failure to which interest at the rate of 9% per annum was awarded from the date of filing complaint, that is, October 26th, 2012 till payment. Respondent had purchased 5 kgs of Guar Seed against payment of Rs. 2,000 from the appellant, which was sown in his field. The seed was found to be defective. He approached the office of Deputy Director, Agriculture, Sirsa. The Deputy Director Agriculture constituted a team of Agriculture Development Officer Kheowali, Block Agriculture Officer, Odhan, and Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Dabwali, to verify the complaint. The team inspected the crop on August 13th, 2012 and assessed the loss to the extent of 40% on account of defect in the Guar seed.

  2. Learned Counsel for the appellant has urged that since the respondent could not prove that he was owner of the land in which he had sown the Guar crop, so he is not entitled for any compensation. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed upon Narender Kumar v. M/s. Arora Trading Company and Others, 2007 (2) CLT 683, wherein this Commission has held that Killa numbers and Khasra numbers of the land, which was inspected by the Agriculture Development Officer, was not mentioned and therefore the report did not pin point the identity of the land of the complainant. So the report was not taken into account to support the stand of the complainant.

  3. In the report Exhibit C-1, it has been clearly mentioned by the team of Agriculture Officers that they inspected the field of Ram Sawroop respondent. With this piece of evidence, it cannot be said that the land in which the Guar crop was sown, was not of Ram Sawroop. So, the authority relied upon is of no avail to the appellant.

  4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also urged that the Committee should have been formed as per the letter dated January 3, 2002 of the Director of Agriculture...

To continue reading

Request your trial