Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. :  209

                                                          Instituted on     :  14.05.2018

                                                          Decided on       :  18.12.2024

Raghubir Singh s/o Sh. Bharat Singh, VPO Saiman, Tehsil Meham, Distt. Rohtak.

                                                          ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

1. District Horticulture Officer Rohtak, Horticulture Deptt. Haryana.
2. Director, Future Agro Teh. Pvt. Ltd. Bhiwani.
3. Deputy Director Rohtak, Horticulture Deptt.  Haryana.

……….Opposite parties.

COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,2019.

BEFORE:  SH. NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

                   DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER

Present:       Ms. MeenakshiSiwach, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.LalitNayyar, Advocate for opposite party No.1 & 3.

                   Sh.R.K.Saharan, Advocate for opposite party No.2.

ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT :

1.                Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant are he had submitted an application to the respondent no.1 for the construction of Net House with a Tri Party Agreement between the complainant and respondents on 17.07.2014. Respondent no.1 is the controlling party of this subsidized scheme according to Tri Party agreement. Complainant’s share was 35% and respondent no.1 had to provide the 65% subsidy of total cost to the firm after final inspection and satisfaction report submission. The respondent no.2 had to complete the work within 20 days, which was not completed on time. According to Tri Party Agreement, first inspection shall be conducted by joint inspection team just after supply of material and completion of foundation work. No list of material was supplied and explained to complainant. Final inspection was to be conducted after completion of structure by joint inspection team of complainant and respondent no.1 & 2. The complainant was cheated by making forgery of false signature of complainant on first inspection report and final inspection report to draw the Govt. subsidy share i.e. 65% of Rs.1960200/-. The first and final inspection was conducted on same date i.e. 19.01.2015 without visiting the site and after making the forgery of complainant’s signature to draw the subsidy amount Rs.1412840/- Complainant made a written complaint to respondent no.1 before 19.01.2015 about the low standard material being used and the respondent no.1 knowingly and deliberately forwarded the same to a wrong address i.e. M/s Bio GreenAgricare, 2^nd Floor, Dhara Complex Opp. Bus Stand, Junagarh(Gujrat). . Complainant made a second complaint to the respondent no.1 in the month of June 2015, which was again forwarded on the same address. Complainant made a complaint to CM window on 25.08.2015 but no action was taken at all. Complainant also made complainant to respondent no.1 in the month of November 2015 which was forwarded to respondent no.2 but no action was taken. Complainant again made a complaint to respondent no.1 on 02.12.2015 but no action was taken by respondent no.1. Complainant also made complaint to P.S.Meham and thereafter to SP Rohtak on 21.12.2016 but no action was taken. Hence this complaint and it has been prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to make the payment of damaged Net house cost of 35%(i.e.Rs.686070/-) of Tri party Agreement (total amount of agreement is Rs.1960200/-) with Rs.300000/- on account of damages of crops continuous for six seasons(July 2014 to April 2017) alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. , compensation of Rs.2 lacs on account of harassment and Rs.50000/- as counsel fee to the complainant. 

2.                Notice of the present complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties appeared and filed theirseparate written statement. Opposite party No.1 & 3 in their written statement has stated that the alleged structure has not been prepared by the opposite party. The opposite party is not accused. It is denied that the structure was to be completed within 20 days. It is submitted that first inspection was done on 19.01.2015 and last inspection was done on 19.01.2015 and the subsidy was released after final inspection.  It is denied that complainant was cheated by making forgery of false signature of complainant on first inspection report and final inspection report to draw  said subsidy. It is denied that the documents are forged, the alleged structure has not been prepared and was not to be prepared by the opposite party.   It is also submitted that as per para no.10.1 of the agreement, “The farm productivity does not depend on use of structure alone. It is also impacted by other facts such as planting materials, application of inputs in terms of quality and schedule, incidence of diseases, soil quality and weather conditions etc.” Hence the scope of responsibility is limited to the installation of structure, technical guidance of the structure and interaction with the farmer  about the structure and maintenance.  As per para no.10.2 of the said agreement, “Firm is not responsible for any consequential damages/liabilities beyond control of firm”. As per para no.10.4 of the said agreement: “farmer should strictly follow guidelines for operation and maintenance given by firm for successful performance”.  As per para 7.3 “DHO and/or Firm will not be responsible for damages of equipment/instruments due to any act on the part of farmer during execution and service period”. As per para 7.5  “DHO and firm shall not be responsible for cropping plan, yield, crop damage etc. arising out of either delay in installation of structure or after handing over of structure to the farmer.  All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost.

3.                Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that as  per tri party agreement, first inspection was conducted by joint inspection team after supply of material and completion of foundation work, list of material was supplied and explained to the complainant, which was duly signed by the complainant. Final inspection was conducted after completion of structure by joint inspection team of officials of local branch & officials of head office and final inspection report was signed by complainant. Complainant has himself signed the first and final inspection report and was also present at the time of inspection.  The respondent claimed subsidy only after completing work and after final inspection was conducted. The final inspection report was prepared which was duly signed by complainant.  Respondent no.2 never received any kind of complaint from the complainant at his address regarding the work of tri party agreement.          All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party no.2 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

4.                Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex. CW1/A, documents Ex. C-1 to Ex.C-9in his evidence and closed the same on 18.12.2019. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 & 3 has made a statement that reply already filed on their behalf be read as affidavit and tendered document Ex.R3/1 and closed his evidence on 10.03.2022. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.2  has tendered affidavit Ex.R2/A and closed his evidence on 19.01.2022.

6.                In this complaint, the complainant initially impleaded two respondents. Subsequently the complainant requested to implead one more respondent in the complaint and total three respondents were impleaded i.e. District Horticulture Officer Rohtak, Director, Future Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd. Bhiwani and Deputy Director Horticulture Department Rohtak, Haryana.

7.                    In the present case, the main contention of the complainant is that the respondents have not installed the net house in a prescribed manner. As per complainant, the respondents committed a fraud at the time of installation of structure. In fact the first and final inspection was conducted on the same date i.e. on 19.01.2015 without visiting the site. It has been further submitted by the complainant that forged documents have been prepared by the respondents and they had withdrawn the subsidy amount of Rs.1412840/- fraudulently. As per tri-party agreement, without completion of the structure the subsidy should not be released in favour of the respondent no.1.The complainant has further alleged that as per the terms and conditions of the tri-party agreement, he had deposited an amount of Rs.686070/- i.e. his 35% share with the respondent no.2. Thereafter, the respondent no.2 was required to complete the work of net house within 20 days, following which 65% of the subsidy was to be provided by the respondent no.1 to respondent no.2(remaining cost of the net house). The respondent no.1 alongwith respondent no.2 & 3 were also required to inspect the net house of the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant initially impleadMr. Deepak Dhatarwal, District Horticulture Officer as respondent no.1(by name).  Subsequently, the name of Deepak Dhatarwal was removed and District Horticulture Officer was impleaded as respondent no.1. In this case the complainant directly levelled allegations against the respondents that a forgery and fraud has been committed with him by all the respondents. In this regard, the complainant filed 6-7 complaints with various senior officers i.e. at CM Window, with SP and DC etc. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties and it was found that the first and final inspection of the respondents’ net house was conducted on the same date i.e. 19.01.2015. To prove this fact the complainant has placed on record two important documents i.e. Ex.C2 & Ex.C3. The perusal of these documents itself shows that the first and last inspection was conducted by the respondent officials on 19.01.2015. We have also perused the other documents placed on record by the complainant very carefully. In this case the respondent no.1 & 3 submitted a document as Ex.R3/1 whereas respondent no.2 submitted an affidavit as Ex.R2/A. This affidavit has been submitted by Sh.DeepakKumar Dhattarwal, the then District Horticulture Officer, Rohtak.  It is very strange that how a govt. official  canfile an affidavit in favour of a private firm whereas he should have favour his department.We have further examined the documents which reveals that Sh.DeepakKumar Dhattarwal, the then District Horticulture Officer lodged a police complaint against the complainant in Shivaji Colony, Police Station Rohtak. An FIR was got registered against the complainant.  The perusal of documents shows that after numerous complaints regarding this matter, the Deputy Commissioner, assigned the Additional Deputy Commissioner to investigate the matter. The report of Additional Deputy Commissioner is marked as Ex.C7, was submitted to Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak. The perusal of this report itself shows that the Additional Deputy Commissioner noted that the poles installed in the complainant’s net house(poly house) were not cemented and the poly house was completely torn. As per our opinion, the first and final inspection was done on 19.01.2015. It has not been disclosed by the respondent no.2 in his written statement that on which date the first inspection was conducted by the parties. Respondent no.2 has also not placed on record any document to prove the fact that any list of material has ever been supplied by the respondent no.2 to the complainant. Soboth the inspection reports are forged one because they were prepared by the officials of opposite parties on one date i.e. 19.01.2015. Moreover the report of Additional Deputy Commissioner itself shows that the  poly house was in torn condition, not cemented, material was not used properly and was not up to the mark. Hence there is grave deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such opposite parties no.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to refund the amount deposited by the complainant(35% share) for the installation of poly house alongwith interest and compensation to the complainant.

9.                Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

10.              Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

18.12.2024.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ………………………………..

                                                          TriptiPannu, Member.

                                                          ………………………………..

                                                          Vijender Singh, Member.