AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners and perused the orders dated 19.04.2018, passed by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), whereby the Appeals preferred by the Respondents herein have been partly allowed and the amount of compensation towards crop loss has been determined @ Rs. 24,000/- per acre for the entire year. The State Commission has taken into consideration the earlier orders passed by it, which have been affirmed by this Commission, against which the Special Leave to Petitions filed by the Farmers had been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Certificate dated 21.06.2012, issued by the Agricultural Marketing Department, Warangal, wherein the per quintal rate during the year 2010-2011 was mentioned as Rs. 4,175-3,200/- was not for the full year but only a part of the year and, therefore, it should not be acted upon. He further invited our attention to the Certificate dated 30.04.2013, issued by the Assistant Director of Marketing, Warangal, filed as Annexure P-10 (page 122 of the paper-book), and submitted that the maximum price per quintal of the cotton crop for the year 2010-11 has been certified to be Rs. 6,296/-, which has been taken at the highest rate of the overall purchases during the year. According to him, the rate of compensation should be determined on the basis of Certificate dated 30.04.2013, wherein the per quintal highest rate of Rs. 6,296/- has been certified.
The submission is wholly misconceived. Merely because the Assistant Director of Marketing, Warangal has certified Rs. 6,296/- as the maximum price per quintal, i.e. based on the highest rate of the overall purchases, is not the average purchase price. The highest rate depends upon various factors. Even if the Assistant Director of Marketing, Warangal has certified Rs. 6,296/- as the maximum price per quintal of cotton crop during the year in question, it would not mean that the Petitioners would get the same price if the commodity is sold in the open market.
The State Commission in paras 35 and 36 has dealt with the Certificate dated 30.04.2013 and has recorded the following findings:
"35. Basing on the above submissions we are of the view that the orders passed by the District Forum are liable to be modified by taking into account the earlier compensation awarded by very same District Forum. The District Forum in the earlier batch of cases has calculated the compensation basing on the Certificate issued by the Agricultural Marketing Department, Warangal during the year 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. It is strange to observe that the Agricultural Marketing Department, Warangal has issued certificate dated 30.04.2013 wherein the rate per quintal for the year 2010-2011 was shown as Rs.6,296/- whereas in the earlier batch of cases the certificate dated 21.06.2012 issued by the Agricultural Marketing Department, Warangal the rate per quintal during the year 2010-2011 was mentioned as Rs.4175-3200/-. By seeing both the certificates there is an ambiguity in the rates per quintal during the year 2010-2011. However, in the earlier batch of cases as the orders passed by the District Forum was confirmed by the erstwhile State Commission, Hon'ble National Commission and also the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are bound by the orders passed by the Hon'ble National Commission and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The District Forum in identical cases in CC Nos. 5 of 2011 and batch fixed the rate as Rs.3,000/- per quintal and the yield per acre was taken as 8 quintals accordingly for one acre the compensation would come to Rs.3,000/- X 8 = Rs.24,000/-. The District Forum also granted interest @ 7.5% per annum with costs of Rs.1,000/-.
If we take minimum 8 quintals per acre and computing @ Rs.3,000/- per quintal the loss would come to Rs.24,000/- per acre and for 3 acres it would be Rs.72,000/-. The Complainant would ger the yield after applying fertilizers and pesticides etc. All this includes cost of the crop. We set aside the compensation of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the District Forum while confirming the interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of complaint till realization. As there is no role of dealer with regard to impurity or defect in seeds, he cannot be made liable to pay compensation."
From a perusal of the reasoning given by the State Commission, we are of the considered opinion that the State Commission has rightly applied the rate as fixed by it. The same has been done by the State Commission relying upon its earlier orders, which have been upheld up-to the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
In view of the above, the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality, warranting interference in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction.
The Revision Petitions are dismissed.