This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing in the presence of Sri. K Laxmi Narasimha Rao, Advocate for complainant and of Sri B. Kalyan Rao, Advocate for opposite parties; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member)
1. This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is an agriculturist and intends to raise the paddy crop, taken the land on lease to an extent of Ac.1.30gts. from one Chitturu Venkaiah. The paddy plants were planted at two stages, about Ac.1.00gts. was planted at first stage and about Ac. 0.30gts was planted later. During the course of yielding i.e. at the stage of Birrupotta and Chirrupotta, the crop was effected with blast disease, thus the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 along with disease effected plants and the opposite party No.1 had given TaTa Contaf Plus to the complainant vide bill No.11717, dated 25-10-2008 and after application of TaTa Contaf Plus, the crop was totally changed and became like dried and again the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 on 04-11-2008 with affected plants of TaTa Contaf Plus, then the opposite party No.1 had given Applaud and TaTa Contaf 5E for the later planted crop and according to the suggestions of opposite party No.1, the complainant applied the same, but the crop was not recovered and as such the complainant questioned the opposite party No.1 about the damage caused to the crop. Then the opposite party No.1 advised the complainant to approach the opposite party No.2, who is the distributor of the said pesticides, accordingly the complainant approached the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 visited the crop and opined that the crop damaged due to application of wrong pesticides and also opined that the loss caused to the crop was due to the above said reason and again they have given Fuzi One 40E one liter and also advised the complainant to collect the loss from the opposite party No.1. The MAO, concerned also visited the fields of the complainant and expressed the same. The complainant further submitted that he sustained huge loss because of wrong advises given by the opposite party No.1 and sustained loss of 70 bags of paddy, which may have valued @ Rs.800/- per bag and in total the complainant had sustained the loss of Rs.56,000/- and also spent an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards other charges for preparation of land for cultivation and as such the opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and prayed to direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards damages together with interest @18% per annum and costs.
2. Along with the complaint, the complainant filed his affidavit and also filed the following documents, which were marked as exhibits,
Ex.A1:- Pesticides purchasing bill, dated 25-10-2008 for Rs.280/-.
Ex.A2 :- Pesticides purchasing bill, dated 04-11-2008 for
Rs.1250/- issued by opposite party No.1.
Ex.A3:- Declaration certificate, issued by MRO, Raghunadha
Palem.
Ex.A4:- Two Photographs, showing the damage caused to the
crop of the complainant.
The complainant also filed item, published in Eenadu Daily paper.
3. After receipt of notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed counter by denying the averments made in the complaint.
4. In the counter, the opposite parties submitted that they are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant as alleged by him and the complaint is not maintainable as the opposite party No.1 is the dealer to the TaTa Rallies Brand Pesticides and several other multi national pesticide companies and also mentioned that the pesticides purchased by the complainant, were supplied by several dealers around the Khammam District and the same were sold to the several farmers but neither complaint nor any defect represented by any farmer or any other dealer, as such the allegation raised by the complainant is invented for the purpose of filing the present case and further submitted that the complainant failed to send the damaged plants to the appropriate laboratory to establish cause of alleged damage to the crop and also failed to made the manufacturer as a party to the proceedings and as such prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. In support of counter averments, third party affidavits filed by Proprietors of Amulya Trading Company, Rythumithra Pesticides & Seeds and Rythumithra Trading Company.
6. In view of the above submissions, now the point for consideration is,
Whether the complainant is entitled the relief as prayed for?
7. As seen from the above averments there is no dispute regarding the purchase of pesticides from the opposite party No.1 and as per the complaint, the complainant purchased the alleged pesticides, according to the suggestions of opposite party No.1 and applied TaTa Contaf Plus on his paddy crop to control blast disease. Despite that, the crop was totally changed and became like dried again the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 with effected plants, then the opposite party No.1 had given Applaud and Beam powder to the first planted crop and TaTa Contaf 5E to the latter planted crop, though the crop was not recovered even after application of pesticides, prescribed by the opposite party No.1, after that the complainant approached the opposite party No.2. The agents of opposite party No.2 and MAO concerned came to the field and opined that the loss caused to the crop was due to the wrong advises of opposite party No.1. But there is no response from the opposite parties to compensate the complainant and as such the complainant seeks redressal from the opposite parties and it is the case of the opposite parties that there is no proof regarding the cause of damage as averred by the complainant and the alleged damage caused due to other various factors and also contended that there is no expert opinion regarding the cause of damage and there is no scientific analysis report, furnished by the complainant and prayed to dismiss the complaint. In view of the above versions put forth by both the parties, it is clear that there is no proof regarding the cause of damage due to the wrong application of pesticides, preferred by the opposite party No.1 and as per the averments of the complaint, the MAO inspected the crop and opined that the crop was damaged due to wrong application of pesticides, but there is no material filed by the complainant regarding any proof to that effect. Moreover, the opposite party No.1 is not a competent person to sue against the damages as alleged by the complainant. In the absence of any scientific proof regarding the damage, we cannot come to a conclusion in favour of the complainant and the point is answered accordingly against the complainant by holding that the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed.
8. In the result the C.C. is dismissed.
Typed to my dictation, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 16th day of June, 2010.
President Member Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined for complainant: None
Witnesses examined for opposite parties: None
Exhibits marked for Complainant:
Ex.A1:- Pesticides purchasing bill, dated 25-10-2008 for Rs.280/-.
Ex.A2 :- Pesticides purchasing bill, dated 04-11-2008 for
Rs.1250/- issued by opposite party No.1.
Ex.A3:- Declaration certificate, issued by MRO, Raghunadha
Palem.
Ex.A4:- Two Photographs, showing the damage caused to the
crop of the complainant.
Exhibits marked for opposite parties:
Nil
President Member Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
