At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. PREM NARAIN
By, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner: Amit Kumar Bhatt, Advocate. For the Respondent: -----
The present revision petition has been filed by Jivan Lal Verma against the order dated 24.04.2018 of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. FA/2017/989.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/ complainant is a farmer and had asked the opposite party/ respondent to develop a shed net house at 4000 sq mtr area amounting to Rs.28,40,000/- out of which 50% was to be received from the Central/ State Government and 50% from the farmer. The said amount was paid by the farmer on 27th March 2015 from his SB Account. The respondent/ opposite party developed the shed net house and due to the cyclone the shed net house was demolished. Information about the demolition of the shed net house was given to the Assistant Coordinator of Horticulture on 23rd, 28th May and 3rd June 2015, through which he asked for the reconstruction of the shed net house but no action was taken. Complainant had incurred a loss of Rs.14,20,000/- which was not redeemed/ refunded by the opposite party.
3. The complainant filed a consumer complaint being complaint no.CC/16/915 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg, Chhattisgarh (‘the District Forum’). The District Forum vide its order dated 28.11.2017 passed the following order:“The complaint is allowed and order the following relief be given to the applicant within one month from this order:
1. The non-applicant will refund Rs.14,20,000/- to the applicant;
2. If the non-applicant does not refund the said amount within the stipulated time then the said amount shall carry an additional 9% per annum interest will be paid to the applicant until the whole principle amount is paid;
3. Non-applicant will pay Rs.5000/- as litigation cost to the applicant”.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the respondent – Kishan Agrotek filed an appeal before the State Commission being FA no.2017/989. The State Commission vide its order dated 24.04.2018 decided the appeal as under:
“The appeal of the appellant/ non-applicant/ Kishan Agrotech Company is partly allowed. The order of the District Forum in paragraph 15 (1) and 15 (2) is set aside and in its place their order will prevail that appellant/ non-applicant/ Kishan Agrotech company will set up totally new green house/ net house with all new material on the area of 4000 sq mt., area according to the land chosen by the applicant/ respondent with full satisfaction of the respondent/ applicant within a period of six months. Paragraph 15 (3) of the order of the District Forum is maintained and no order as to costs”.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage and perused the record. Learned counsel has stated that the District Forum had ordered refund of the amount paid by the complainant for construction of the shed net house. It was stated that the shed net was devastated in the cyclone and the complainant could not reap any benefit from the shed net house. Eventualities from this type of disturbances cannot be ruled out and therefore, the complainant is now interested in getting his investment back from the opposite party/ respondent. Learned counsel has stated that there is no surety of good crop production to the complainant under the shed net scheme, as the level of ground water has gone down and due to scarcity of water full use of the shed net house is not possible. In the order, the State Commission has not considered these aspects at all. Learned counsel has further mentioned that the complainant is afraid that the respondent/ OP will again use the low grade material for construction of the shed net house and the shed net house will meet the same fate again causing loss to the complainant. Thus, it was emphasized by the learned counsel that the reconstruction of the shed net house will be of no use to the complainant and in this way, the order of the State Commission will serve no purpose to the complainant and therefore, should be set aside and the order of the District Forum should be maintained.
6. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the record. The total cost of the shed net house is Rs.28,40,000/- and there is 50% subsidy in the scheme which has been availed by the complainant/ petitioner. If the amount is refunded to the complainant by the respondent/ opposite party, the whole purpose of the scheme will be frustrated. Once the complainant has agreed to take the benefit under this scheme and the Government has already released the subsidy, it is for the benefit of the complainant that the complainant avails full benefit under this scheme. Whatever adverse conditions are being mentioned by the complainant for not going ahead with the reconstructed shed net house may also have been present when the scheme was sanctioned in favour of the complainant and the complainant agreed to get the benefit under the scheme including the availment of subsidy. Therefore, it is in the interest of the complainant that shed net house is reconstructed properly so that the complainant may reap full benefit under the scheme. The State Commission has given six months’ time to the respondent/ opposite party to reconstruct the new shed net house as per the provisions of the scheme. However, the State Commission has not ordered any follow up of reconstruction of the shed net house. It is therefore, directed that, District Horticulture Officer shall inspect the shed net house after reconstruction as per the order of the State Commission dated 24.04.2018 and shall submit a certificate of construction as per the provisions of the sche
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
me. It is also made clear that the complainant would be entitled to move an execution application for compliance of the order of the State Commission including this order. 7. If the shed net house is not reconstructed or completed as per the order of the State Commission, the complainant will have liberty to file a fresh complaint for refund of the amount however, in that case, issue of recovery of subsidy will also be examined by the concerned forum. 8. Thus, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and consequently revision petition no. 2053 of 2018 stands disposed of with the above directions.