Haryana

Sonipat

52/2014

AMIT AGRO MASROOM FARM - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. HARYANA STATE ,2. MANAGINING DAIRECTOR HARYANA AGRO,3. HAIK AGRO MASROOM CENTRE - Opp.Party(s)

S.K. SHARMA

22 Jan 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

                                                      

                                    Complaint No.52 of 2014

                                    Instituted on:19.02.2014

                                    Date of order:13.05.2015

 

Amit Agro Mushroom Farm House, village Haluwas, tehsil and district Bhiwani, through Prop. Ram Avtar son of Devi Singh, resident of village Haluwas, tehsil and distt. Bhiwani.

     …….Complainant

 

                   VERSUS

 

1.Haryana State through Collector, Sonepat.

2.Managing Director, Haryana Agro, Sector 4, 1520 Bays, Panchkula.

3.Manager/Incharge/Head of Instt. HAIC Agro Mushroom Centre, village Murthal, distt. Sonepat.

   ……Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. SK Sharma, Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. J.S. Rohila, Adv. for respondents.

 

BEFORE-   Nagender Singh, President.

          Smt. Prabha Wati, Member.

          D.V. Rathi, Member.

 

O R D E R

 

        Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that from HAIC Agro Murthal, the complainant has purchased Compost Seed casing Sand worth Rs.65950/- from the respondents. The complainant has used the same as per instructions of Ajay Singh Incharge, but despite this, there was no mushroom crop.  On complaint dated 20.12.2012,  Ajay Singh visited the spot and done the needful, but the same has also not brought any fruitful result.  The complainant has also made a complaint to other Higher Authorities, but of no use and the complainant has to suffer a loss of Rs.3,24,280/-  due to supply of substandard compost casing sand.  So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       The respondents appeared and has filed the written statement denying the fact that there was no proper growth of mushroom spawn or any inferior quality of material was supplied to him by the respondent no.3.  Infact there was proper germination.  The mushroom spawn and casing soil and compost were of good quality which were supplied to the complainant.    The complainant never contained Ajay Singh again and again.  However, he had met him only once with his false oral complaint regarding germination of the mushroom spawn. On the application moved by the complainant, a team consisting of Ajay Singh himself, Dr Sandeep Bankhar Horticulture Development Officer, Bhiwani, one Technical Asstt. Jitendra Kumar and alongwith other team members visited the farm of the complainant on 3.1.2013  in the presence of the complainant and it was found at the spot that conditions of mushroom growth were not properly fulfilled by the complainant himself.  Temperature was below normal standard at the spot as rooms were freshly constructed and were without covered windows & doors to protect mushroom growth room from shivering cold.  So growing room was not found properly packed.  Besides this excess casing was found at the spot.  Thickness of the casing soil was not found proper.

The thickness of soil was required 1½  inch at the spot on the bags.  While the complainant has thickened the soil upto 3 inches which resulted into unnecessary water logging at the spot, due to which, the mushroom fungus was also affected. The material like mushroom spawn, casing soil as well as compost of the same lot were already have been purchased from the respondent no.3 by many farmers, but none of them raised any objections.  The complainant has purchased 1300 kg casing soil from HAIC Agro with 8680 kg compost.  The basic requirement of casing soil for compost is 25% of the weight of compost.  The complainant has purchased only 1300 kg. casing soil against minimum requirement of 2170 kg.(casing soil required:8680 kg compost x 25%=2170 kg).  The complainant had mixed unpasteurized/unsterilized soil into it to make up the basic requirement and as a result, casing soil got infected with nematodes and thus, the complainant himself remained very negligent. The complainant has alleged false and baseless allegations and it seems that the complainant wants to extract money in the shape of compensation from the respondents, to which, he is absolutely not entitled to as there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.       We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the entire case file very carefully.

4.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that due to supply of inferior and substandard quality of material, there was no proper growth of mushroom spawn and due to this, the complainant has to suffer a loss of Rs.324280/-.

         On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted and denied that there was no proper growth of mushroom spawn or any inferior quality of material was supplied to him by the respondent no.3. Infact there was proper germination.  The mushroom spawn and casing soil and compost were of good quality which were supplied to the complainant.    The complainant never contained Ajay Singh again and again.  However, he had met him only once with his false oral complaint regarding germination of the mushroom spawn. On the application moved by the complainant, a team consisting of Ajay Singh, Dr Sandeep Bankhar Horticulture Development Officer, Bhiwani, one Technical Asstt. Jitendra Kumar and Ajay Singh himself visited the farm of the complainant on 3.1.2013  in the presence of the complainant and it was found at the spot that conditions of mushroom growth were not properly fulfilled by the complainant himself.  Temperature was below normal standard at the spot as rooms were freshly constructed and were without covered windows & doors to protect mushroom growth room from shivering cold.  So growing room was not found properly packed.  Besides this excess casing was found at the spot.  Thickness of the casing soil was not found proper.

The thickness of soil was required 1½  inch at the spot on the bags.  While the complainant has thickened the soil upto 3 inches which resulted into unnecessary water logging at the spot, due to which, the mushroom fungus was also affected. The material like mushroom spawn, casing soil as well as compost of the same lot were already have been purchased from the respondent no.3 by many farmers, but none of them raised any objections.  The complainant has purchased 1300 kg casing soil from HAIC Agro with 8680 kg compost.  The basic requirement of casing soil for compost is 25% of the weight of compost.  The complainant has purchased only 1300 kg. casing soil against minimum requirement of 2170 kg.(casing soil required:8680 kg compost x 25%=2170 kg).  The complainant had mixed unpasteurized/unsterilized soil into it to make up the basic requirement and as a result, casing soil got infected with nematodes and thus, the complainant himself remained very negligent. The complainant has alleged false and baseless allegations and it seems that the complainant wants to extract money in the shape of compensation from the respondents, to which, he is absolutely not entitled to as there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

         In the present case, at the time of arguments, both the parties moved an application for placing some more documents in support of their case.

         The complainant has placed on record the document Annexure-X. Similarly, the respondents have placed on record the comments in support of their case issued by Professor and Head Deptt. of Nematology, CCS, HAU Hissar, wherein it is specifically mentioned that “No doubt the samples collected from village Halluwas (Bhiwani) had infestation of the nematode, aphelenchoides, however, the source of introduction of the nematode infestation could not be ascertained at that stage as the samples were collected in the m/o Feb, 2013 i.e. more-than 2 months after composting when the farmer had completed various cultural practices and even might have started the harvest.  Had the samples been drawn before spawning, the compost as source of introduction of the nematode could have been defined.  The contamination with nematodes can take place any time from composting to harvesting.  Other than composting, the nematode can enter the mushroom house through various sources like casing soil, water, handling tools, platform soil etc.  Files also act as a vector of nematodes.  Since the rate of multiplication of nematode is very high, a small infestation even at a later stage can cause heavy losses”.

         Ld. Counsel for the respondents has also relied upon the case law titled as Haryana Seed Development Corp. Ltd. Vs. Sadhu and another, 2005(3) Supreme Court Cases page 198.

         Ld. Counsel for the complainant has also argued his case vehemently and he has also placed his reliance on the document Annexure A-X wherein Head of Department of Nematology, CCS HAU Hissar has commented that “As per the data available in the department and literature, it is mentioned that a population of more than 100 nematodes per kg(0.1 nematodes per ml/g) compost at spawning can cause a loss to the extent of 25-30% in mushroom yield.  However, it is also mentioned that the data available in the report pertains to sample collected on 6.2.2013”.

         But it is very sorry state of affairs that from where the nematodes comes into the mushroom house, the complainant has failed to define. Whereas on the other hand, it is specifically commented by Professor and Head Deptt. of Nematology, CCS HAU Hissar dated 15.4.2015 that “Other than composting, the nematode can enter the mushroom house through various sources like casing soil, water, handling tools, platform soil etc.  Files also act as a vector of nematodes”.

 

         The respondents have also been able to prove that on the application moved by the complainant, a team consisting of Ajay Singh, Dr Sandeep Bankhar Horticulture Development Officer, Bhiwani, one Technical Asstt. Jitendra Kumar and alongwith other team members visited the farm of the complainant on 3.1.2013  in the presence of the complainant and it was found at the spot that conditions of mushroom growth were not properly fulfilled by the complainant himself.  Temperature was below normal standard at the spot as rooms were freshly constructed and were without covered windows & doors to protect mushroom growth room from shivering cold.  So growing room was not found properly packed.  Besides this excess casing was found at the spot.  Thickness of the casing soil was not found proper.  The thickness of soil was required 1½  inch at the spot on the bags.  While the complainant has thickened the soil upto 3 inches which resulted into unnecessary water logging at the spot, due to which, the mushroom fungus was also affected.

         As per report dated 15.4.2015, the nematode can enter the mushroom house through various sources like casing soil, water, handling tools, platform soil etc..

         The material like mushroom spawn, casing soil as well as compost of the same lot were already have been purchased from the respondent no.3 by many persons of different places, but none of them raised any objections. 

         Ld. Counsel for the respondents has also further contended that the complainant has purchased 1300 kg casing soil from HAIC Agro with 8680 kg compost.  The basic requirement of casing soil for compost is 25% of the weight of compost.  The complainant has purchased only 1300 kg. casing soil against minimum requirement of 2170 kg.(casing soil required:8680 kg compost x 25%=2170 kg).  The complainant had mixed unpasteurized/unsterilized soil into it to make up the basic requirement and as a result, casing soil got infected with nematodes and thus, the complainant himself remained very negligent.

         From the contentions raised by the ld. Counsel for the respondents and keeping in view the case law titled as Haryana Seeds Development Vs. Sadhu & Anr (Supra), it is established that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and the above contentions has gone unrebutted. The complainant himself is liable for his own acts and deeds.  For the lapses on the part of the complainant himself, the respondents cannot be held liable.  Since the complainant has failed to prove his case against the respondents, we have no hesitation in dismissing the present complaint and we order accordingly.

         The parties are left to bear their own costs.

        Certified copies of order be provided to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Devi-Member)    (D.V.Rathi)         (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat.

 

Announced:13.05.2015