Haryana

Sonipat

CC/124/1999

SUKHBIR SINGH S/O BALBIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. INDIAN FARMER FERTILIZER,2. DE NOCIL CROP PROTECTION LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

JITENDER KUMAR

29 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

             

 

                             Complaint No.124 of 1999                                       Instituted on:02.04.1999

                             Date of order:29.06.2015

 

Sukhbir Singh son of Balbir Singh, resident of village Rathdhana, tehsil and distt. Sonepat.

                                                                                                           ...Complainant.

 

                      Versus

 

1.Indian Farmers Fertilizer Co-op. ltd. State Marketing Office, Haryana & Delhi service Centre, Sonepat through its Manager, Savitri Market Iffco Kisan Sewa Kendar, near Cremation Ground, Gohana Adda, Sonepat.

2.Manager M/s De-Nocil Crop.Projection Ltd. 10^th Floor, Videocon Tower, C-1, Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi-5.

                                                                                                          ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF        

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

 

Argued by:    Shri Jitender Kumar Adv. for complainant.

              Shri KK Malik, Adv. for respondent no.1.

              Shri Ashok Pandit, Adv. for respondent no.2.

 

 

BEFORE    NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          D.V. RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          First of all, we would like to mention here that earlier the present complaint was allowed vide order dated 5.8.2003 by the learned predecessor of this Forum and the respondents were directed to make the payment of Rs.1,40,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of sprinkling of weedicide on the wheat crops till realization.

          After passing of the above said order, the respondents approached the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula by way of an appeal and the Hon’ble State Commission vide order dated 11.12.2008 reduced the quantum of compensation from Rs.1,40,000/- to Rs.80,000/-.  But still aggrieved, the respondents filed the revision petition before the Hon’ble National Commission.

          The Revision Petition no.857 of 2009 was decided by the Hon’ble National Commission vide order dated 27.1.2015 with the directions to both the parties to appear before this Forum on 24.2.2015 and the respondents were directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.  The District Forum shall allow the complainant as well as to the respondents to cross-examine the official of Agrl. Deptt. namely Mr. Surya Prakash and Distt. Forum shall pass a fresh order after recording the aforesaid deposition and cross-examination of Surya Parkash within a period of three months of the parties appearing before it, in terms of this order”.

          Both the parties appeared before this Forum on 24.2.2015 as per directions of the Hon’ble National Commission.

2.        Briefly stated the facts of the present complaint are that the complainant has purchased on 9.12.1998, 16 packets weighing ½ kg each of a weedicide namely Neurolon meant for destroying Kharpatwar.  The weedicide as mentioned above was sprinkled/sprayed by the complainant on the wheat crop as per the procedure mentioned on the packet.  According to the complainant, it was done in the presence of the officials of the Agrl. Deptt. but instead of removing Kharpatwark, the weedicide destroyed the wheat crop and has caused huge loss to the complainant.  The complainant, thus, has filed the present complaint before this Forum with the prayer to give directions to the respondents to award a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- incurred by him for sowing wheat crop and Rs.2 lacs on account of loss and sufferings.

2.        Both the respondents no.1 and 2 have filed their separate written statement.

          The respondent no.1 in its written statement has alleged that no kharpatwar Nashak Dawa namely Neurolon was ever sold to the complainant by or through the farmers service centre at Sonepat of the respondent vide receipt dated 9.12.1998.  Infact the weedicide sold vide the said receipt was Nocilon.   The complainant did not spray the weedicide supplied by the respondent and instead sprinkled the weedicide with the brand name of Neurolon which was never supplied by the respondent to the complainant.   The weedicide sold by the respondent was in a sealed packets and was genuine.   No official of Agrl.Deptt. has ever visited officially the fields of the complainant and in case, there is any such alleged report, the same is fabricated one and has been got prepared by the complainant in collusion with the ADO of Rathdhana. Except the complaint of the complainant, no such complaint has ever been received by the respondent about non-effectiveness of the weedicide till date.   The complainant has filed the false and frivolous complaint only to extract the amount of compensation. The complainant has not followed the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act which was mandatory and in the absence of such compliance, the present complaint is not maintainable.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation from  respondent no.1 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

          The respondent no.2 in its written statement has submitted that  the respondent no.2 never dealt with the weedicide with the brand name of Neurolon.  The weedicide named Nocilon needs set time and scientific method of application which the complainant has failed to explain in his complaint.   Only spray method was liable to be applied and thus, the respondent no.2 is not responsible for illegal method adopted by the complainant.  The alleged cost of cultivation of wheat crop is quite false, frivolous and baseless.  Only the tested weedicide from the authorized lab were supplied by the respondent no.2 to respondent no.1.  No official of the Agrl. Deptt. of Sonepat has ever visited official the alleged fields of the complainant and in case there is any such report, the same is fabricated one and was got prepared in collusion with the ADO of Rathdhana.  No sample was taken and tested to prove inefficiency nor any residual testing was done.  The ADO Rathdhana was neither competent nor authorized person to give such report.    The complainant, if any, has suffered any  loss or damages, that is only due to his own negligence and carelessness and for the same, the respondent no.2 is not liable at all.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation by way of present complaint from respondent no.2 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

          As per directions of the Hon’ble National Commission given vide order dated 27.1.2015 in Revision Petition no.857 of 2009, Shri Surya Parkash the official of Agrl.Department was summoned and was examined as a witness on 21.04.2015.

          The evidence and cross examination of the witness Surya Parkash is mentioned below:-

          I was posted as ADO in the year of 1999. An application Ex.P1 was given by Sukhbir Singh son of Balbir Singh r/o Rathdhana.  Ex.P1 bears my signature and after inspecting the crops of wheat I made my report upon Ex.P1 and I found at the spot that due to the non-effect of the medicine (Neurolon) the chances of production of wheat was less upto 6o to 65% as there were Kharpatwar (Masundi).  The report was made by my own handwriting and at that time, I was posted at Rathdhana as A.D.O.  The complainant Sukhbir Singh produced a bill of medicine Neurolon issued from Iffco issued on 9.12.1998.

xxxxxxmn by Shri KK Malik Adv. on behalf of Iffco and Sh. Ashok Pandit, Adv. on behalf of De-Nocil.

 

It is correct that Sukhbir Singh complainant did not

consult me even did not seek any suggestion from me before sprinkling or using the Weedicide Neurolon.  It is also correct that the medicine/weedicide was not sprinkled/used in my presence nor the same was used under my directions/suggestions. It is correct that while visiting the fields of complainant Sukhbir Singh on his application for inspection of complainant’s fields, I have not served any notice to Iffco and De-Nocil company to the effect that I am visiting the fields of complainant who has alleged to have used the said weedicide Neurolon.  The formula of calculating the damaged crop in any field is based on square meter visible on the spot. It is correct that it is the natural phenomnia that whenever any fields is sown or any crop in such field is cultivated the Kharpatwar has to grow before the natural crop comes out from that field. I have seen the application Ex.P1 which bears my endorsement but the said application is undated.  I have also perused the contents of the application Ex.P1 wherein field number or killa number of the complainant are not mentioned nor total area in which the said weedicide was used is mentioned in this application.   It is incorrect to suggest that I have not visited the spot  or that I have prepared my report while sitting in my office. It is wrong to  suggest that I have shown the loss upto 60 to 65% with the collusion of the complainant or that I am deposing falsely.

xxxxxmn by Shri Jitender Kumar, Adv. for complainant as directed by the Hon’ble National Commission vide order dated 27.1.2015.

          It is correct that in application Ex.P1 the land of the complainant is mentioned that he spread the medicine in 16 acres.

It is correct that upon the container of medicine carries the direction for use of such medicine and also carries the warning.  It is correct that I asked to the complainant and verified that as per directions given upon the container of such medicine he used as per directions and warnings.  It is correct that in routine we did not inform to the manufacturer or company of medicine and we are not authorized to call the manufacturer or seller or dealer.

                                      Sd/-

RO&AC                             President, DCDRF, Sonepat.

                                      21.04.2015.

 

 

          Similarly on 09.06.2015 the complainant Sukhbir Singh was cross-examined by S/Shri KK Malik and Ashok Pandit, Advocates. Cross-examination of the complainant Sukhbir Singh is reproduced below:-

          I don’t know as to how much land comes to my share as per jamabandi placed on record. Self stated that I am in cultivating possession of more-than my share as my two younger brothers and sister authorized me to cultivate their share.  The land is situated at different places in the Hadbast of village Rathdhana, Liwaspur, Liwan and Rai. I don’t know as to when the pesticide used in my fields was purchased.  Self stated that the receipt of which is available on the case file.    It was written on the wrapper of the pesticide that one packet is to be mixed in 20 litres water, only then the same may be sprayed on the crops.  The same was sprinkled in the presence of ADO Concerned. Again said it was sprinkled after consultation of ADO. However, later-on ADO had come present.  It is wrong to suggest that ADO concerned was neither consulted nor he was present when the pesticide was used/sprinkled/sprayed on the crops.  It is correct that whenever any crop is sown, with the said crop some kharpatwar is bound to grow in the fields.  Self stated to remove kharpatwar, pesticide is used in the fields.  The pesticide which was purchased for spray on the crop, was used in one go on all the fields situated at village Rathdhana, Liwaspur, Liwan and Rai.    Self stated that pesticide was used by four different sprinkler machines.  Confronted

with the affidavit Ex.CW1/A wherein it is not so recorded. I don’t know as to when the ADO concerned visited my fields, but the dates are recorded in the papers on record.  Again said that I cann’t tell the exact date as the matter pertains very old.  It is correct that the application Ex.P1 do not bear the date when it was presented by me to the ADO concerned.  Self stated that the pesticide was purchased on 9.12.1998 and after the purchase within two days, he moved the application to the ADO concerned regarding inspection of the fields upon which the said pesticide was sprinkled. After moving the application, the ADO concerned visited the fields approximately after 20 to 25 days.  It is incorrect to say that I am deposing falsely.                                

                                         Sd/-

RO&AC                             President, DCDRF, Sonepat.

                                      09.06.2015.

 

          The present complaint was filed by the complainant on 2.4.1999 and the application Ex.P1 was moved by the complainant before the Krishi Vikas Adhikari, Sonepat before filing of the present complaint.  In the application Ex.P1, the complainant has submitted that on the boxes of medicine, the method how to use was mentioned and he sprayed the medicine as per printed method.  Shri Surya Parkash, Krishi Vikas Adhikari has mentioned in his report on the application Ex.P1 that due to non-effect of the medicine Neurolon, the production of wheat crop is less 60 to 65%.  Shri Surya Parkash ADO in his cross-examination has stated that

          “Sukhbir Singh complainant did not consult me even did not seek any suggestion from me before sprinkling or using the Weedicide Neurolon.  It is also correct that the medicine/weedicide was not sprinkled/used in my presence nor the same was used under my directions/suggestions.” 

          So, from the cross-examination of Shri Surya Parkash, it is clear that the medicine/weedicide was not sprinkled/used in the presence of Surya Parkash by the complainant.

          However, since there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant has sprinkled the medicine/weedicide on his crops.  The report of ADO also supports the case of the complainant.  So, definitely, the complainant is entitled to get some suitable compensation from the respondents because despite using the weedicide  as per the instructions contained on the cartel, the weedicide had no effect on the weeds but the yield from the crop had substantially reduced.  The observation of this Forum is fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission rendered in case titled as M/s Dharam Pal and sons and others Vs. Som Parkash, 2014(3) CLT page 187 and it has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission that :-

“Compensation can be awarded without laboratory  test of seeds, only on the basis of inspection of report of Agriculture Department-As there was no ill-will in between inspection team and the seller of the seed.

Officers of Agrl. Department inspected the fields and submitted their report-Complaint accepted on the basis of report of Agrl. Deptt-Plea of OP that seeds not got tested from the lab nor seeds send to Seed Analyst for analysis-Plea not tenable-Held-As per the report, it is clear that the complainant had suffered loss in his paddy crop, to the extent of 50% on account of substandard quality of seed sold to him by the Ops-There is nothing to label it as any ill-will by the members of the joint inspection team and the seller of the seed-Revision petition dismissed”.

          In the present case, vide order dated 5.8.2003, the respondents were directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- to the complainant.  But vide order dated 11.12.2008, the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula has reduced the quantum of compensation from Rs.1,40,000/- to Rs.80,000/-.  The complainant has not filed any appeal or revision before any appellate authority for enhancement of the compensation.  So, in our view, Rs.80,000/- would be an adequate compensation to be granted to the complainant from the respondents.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- (Rs.eighty thousands) to the complainant for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

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

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:29.06.2015