Haryana

Sonipat

CC/98/2015

JAGMENDER S/O FATTE SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. H.P.M. CHEMICALS & FERTILIZER LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SATISH CHANDER

28 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.98 of 2015

                                Instituted on:20.03.2015

                                Date of order:28.04.2016

 

Jagmender son of Fateh Singh, r/o village Bichpari, tehsil Gohana, distt. Sonepat.

                                                …Complainant.         

                           Versus

 

 

1.HPS Chemicals and fertilizer ltd. NISO 9001-4001 and BSOHSAS 18001 certified company unit-1, SP-9 C Rico Industrial Area, Kurukshetra-301707(Raj).

2.Sumeel Chemicals Ind. Pvt. Ltd., 604/605, 349 Business Point Western Express Highway Andheri (East) Mumbai-400069 Factory ICS(Phase 2) Sambha 184121 J.K.

3.M/s Balaji Beej Kender, In front of New Anaj Mandi Gate, Jind road, Gohana, distt. Sonepat.

                                           …Respondents.

 

                COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

                THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Sumit Munjal Advocate for Complainant.

           Sh. Baljit Khatri for respondent no.1.

           Sh. Kulvinder Dabur Area Sales Manager for Respt. no.2.

           Sh. Amrish Kumar Adv.for respondent no.3.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

          Prabha Wati-Member.

          

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he has purchased Spray from respondent no.3 on 15.1.2015 and used the same on the standing wheat crop, but due to the use of this spray, the wheat crop of the complainant were destroyed.  The complainant moved an application dated 12.2.2015 in this regard before the ADO Mundlana and the said officer inspected the fields and submitted their report.  The complainant has requested the respondents to compensate him, but of no use and this wrongful act of the respondents have caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondents appeared and filed their separate written statement.

          The respondent no.1 in its written statement has submitted that for the control of phalaris minor and avena spp. Liked grass/weeds for an area of 50 acres, the complainant has purchased Clodinofop 15% WP 160 gms x 50 nos. packet and for the control of broad leaf weeds like Chino podiam alba in the area of 15 acres, 2-4-D 58% manufactured by respondent no.1.  The complainant was advised to spray the same 400 ml/acres mixing with water 100 litres and 200 litres if it is prayed by power spray and knap sack sprayer respectively.   The complainant was also advised not to use the combination of any pesticide/weedicide and the weedicine should be used only for the control of such weeds for which the weedicide have been purchased after washing the sprayer instructment well with clean water before using the weedicide.   But the complainant has set aside all technical guidelines for using the weedicide which is known by every farmers. The inspection report of the inspection team has also recommended the application of fertilizer to recoup the so said loss as merely as to mention about the yellowness of the upper part of wheat leaf does not solve the purpose of such kind of inspection.  No specific reason of yellowness has been given.  So, the report is self evidence which reveals that so said crop converted by such deficiency which is curable by the use of fertilizer.   The inspection report is also silent about the crop covered area under spray.  The report is not acceptable and is submitted without any evidence of any independent witness, photos and without giving any notice to the respondents.  So, the respondent no.1 is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.

          The respondent no.2 in its report has submitted that the use of said weedicide is subject to certain instructions which are duly conveyed alaongwith the project.  The respondent no.1 never recommended nor there is such a practice of combination of such two weedicides approved by the Central Insecticides Boards and it is very difficult to conjecture on its effect on wheat crop.   The product Viola-150 is a selective post mergence weedicide and it is recommended for application after 30-35 days of sowing when the weed phalrasis minor is at 3-4 leaf stage.  Application of the product in right dose at the correct stage does not have any harmful effect on the crop.   The product supplied/manufactured by the respondent no.2 is of good quality and there is no chance of any damage to the crops of the complainant due to use of the said product.  The inspection report does not disclose any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2.  The report is vague and evasive.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

          The respondent no.3 in its reply has submitted that the respondent no.3 has sold the product in question in sealed/packed condition.  No notice was ever given to the respondent no.3 to join the inspecting team.  The complainant also never informed the respondent no.3 about any damage to his crops. So, the respondent no.3 is not liable to compensate the complainant in any manner and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint qua respondent no.3.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties at length. All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely. 

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that due to supply of substandard and inferior quality of weedicide, the wheat crop of the complainant were destroyed and the complainant has suffered a huge of Rs.6,00,000/- at the hands of the respondents.

          On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2 have argued their case by controverting the pleading of the complainant’s complaint and further submitted that the respondents no.1 and 2 are not liable in any manner to compensate the complainant what to speak of Rs.6 lacs.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 has relied upon the case law titled as Risiga Agro (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lakhveer Singh and others 2010(IV) CPJ 230  wherein the Hon’ble Punjab State Commission has held that Insecticide-Defective-Crop Destroyed-Forum directed OP to pay compensation-Appeal-Contention, excess insecticide used, accepted-Complainant sprayed insecticide in larger quantity by mixing in less water.

          The Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula in case titled as Nagarjun Agrl. Chemical Vs. Satish and another,  2012(1) CPJ page 135  has held that Compalinant had not used pesticide in appropriate time in paddy crop-Excess quantity of pesticides than recommended were used by the complainant, which can give adverse effect on crops-No deficiency in service on the part of the OP proved.

          We have perused the inspection report Annexure C-2 placed on record by the complainant.

          As per this report, ADO ()PP) Mundlana, BAO Mundlana and SDAO Gohana have constituted a team for inspection of the crop of the complainant-farmer.  They inspected the crop of the complainant standing in 11 acres of land on 12.2.2015.  As per this report, there are damages in 3 to 5 places per sq. meter. In these places 60 to 70% leaf of the plant were damaged about 4 to 5 inches at upper portion and 20 to 25% crops were damaged.

          It means only 3 to 5 per sq. meter crop were damaged.

    

          It is pertinent to mention here that as per this report, the complainant has mixed the pesticide in 500 litre water for three acres of land.  In our view, if the pesticide would have been defective or inferior quality, then the entire crop of the complainant would have been damaged and not in a partial manner.  In our view, the complainant sprayed pesticide in larger quantity by mixing in less water  and due to mistake of the complainant, the crop were destroyed.  In our view, pesticide was not defective or substandard in any manner. Instructions given in literature by manufacturer company to spray pesticide not followed by the complainant and thus, for the lapsed on the part of the complainant himself, the respondents cannot be held liable in any manner because excess quantity of pesticide than recommended used by the complainant can give adverse effect on the crops.  Thus, we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled to get any kind of relief against the respondents and we have no hesitation in dismissing the present complaint as it has no merit.

          The parties are left to bear their own costs.

D

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)                   (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF                      DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced: 28.04.2016