Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 308.
Instituted on : 23.05.2011.
Decided on : 25.03.2015.
Devender s/o Sh. Jagdish R/o Village-Bhaini Mato, Teh. Meham, Distt. Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Aadhar Retailing Ltd. Ward No. 6, Near Kranti Chowk Opp. P.N.B. Bank, N.H. 10, Meham, Distt. Rohtak through its Proprietor.
- Pioneer Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. Industrial Growth Centre, Samba, Distt. Jammu(J & K) through its Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.R.S.Soni, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Devrat Dalal, Advocate for the opposite party no.1.
Sh.Vinod Pahwa Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that complainant had taken 5 acres of agricultural land on rent for a period of one year Rs.22000/- per acre and paid Rs.110000/- to the land owner for 5 acres of land. It is averred that complainant sowed the wheat crop in 5 acres of land in the month of November 2010 and spent an amount of Rs.90000/- for purchase of seeds, DAP, Cultivating, water and labour etc. It is averred that on 24.12.2010 the complainant purchased 17 packets of pesticides namely topic from the opposite party no.1 to the tune of Rs.6290/- and opposite party no.1 is the manufacturer of said pesticides. It is averred that complainant sprayed the same as per instructions for the safety of his wheat crop, but inspite of safety of crops from poisonous insects the alleged medicines destroyed the whole crop of the complainant. The complainant complained about the same to the opposite party in this regard and the official of opposite party no. 2 & 3 visited and inspected the destroyed wheat crop of the complainant. The complainant also reported the matter to the Deputy Director, Agriculture Department, Rohtak and the officials got surveyed the crop and found the destroyness of the crops. The same fact was revealed by the Agriculture Department in their survey report. It is averred that the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.400000/- due to the selling of non-genuine medicine by the opposite parties. The complainant informed the opposite parties and requested to pay the compensation but any heed was not paid to his requests. It is averred that opposite party no.1 & 2 have adopted the unfair trade practice and anti consumer policy by selling the non-genuine medicine. As such it is prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to make the cost of 5 acre crop of wheat to the tune of Rs.400000/- and Rs.90000/- as cost of sowing, seed cost, watering, cultivating charges with interest, compensation and litigation expenses.
2. On notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their separate written statement. Opposite party no.1 in its reply has submitted that the answering opposite party is the only sub-dealer and had purchased the pesticide from M/s Bharat Bhushan Parmod Kumar Uchana Mandi Jind vide bill no.4651 dated 14.12.2010 and had sold to the complainant in the same position as it had received. It is averred that the complainant did not follow the instructions which were mentioned on the packet of pesticide. The pesticide sold by answering opposite party never destroyed the crops of any farmer. There is a great apprehension that the complainant might have used another pesticide which would have destroyed the crops of the complainant. It is denied that the complainant has suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.400000/- due to answering opposite party. As such dismissal of the complaint has been sought.
3. Opposite party no.3 in its written reply has submitted that the answering opposite party is the manufacturer of medicine Topic. It is averred that the medicine Topic is only for use of Herbicide and nor for anti crop insects. It is for use of canary grass(phalarises Minor). It is averred that the answering opposite party manufactured this medicine only for the company Syngenta who sold it in the market and it is clearly mentioned in its literature given with this product to the customers that the use of this product is beyond our control hence we can assured the uniformity of this product only and we do not give any assurance regarding its efficiency in the field. It is averred that there were proper instructions on the medicine and no proper instructions were followed by the complainant hence no proper result can be obtained. It is averred that there is no manufacturing defect in the medicine and there is not a single complaint regarding this medicine from all over the country. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C13 & documents Ex.C14 to Ex.C15 and closed has his evidence. On the other hand, opposite party No.1 in its evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.RW1/B and closed its evidence. Opposite party no.2 in its evidence has tendered reply in evidence and has closed the evidence.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
7. In the present case it is not disputed that as per receipt no.613 dated 27.01.2011 placed on file as Ex.C5, complainant Devender had purchased the medicine namely Topic for Rs.6290/- from the opposite party no.1. As per copy of jamabandi Ex.C15 one Balwan is owner of 1/4th share of land comprised in Khewat No.441/339 Khatoni no.458 and as per affidavit Ex.C14 Balwan Singh had given 5 acres of land to Devender(complainant) on rent for a period of one year for consideration of Rs.22000/- per acre. As per application Ex.C6 complainant had requested the Agriculture Department to inspect his crops in 5 acres of land. As per the report of Expert Ex.C7 issued by Agriculture Department on dated 28.02.2011 there was 80% loss of wheat crop in 2 acres of land and 60-65% in 3 acres of land. On the other hand, opposite party no.1 vide affidavit Ex.RW1/A of Nagender Saini has submitted that the opposite party no.1 had purchased the pesticide from M/s Bharat Bhushan Parmod Kumar, Uchana Mandi, Jind vide bill No.4651 dated 14.12.2010 and had sold to the complainant in the same position as it had received and has placed on record copy of bill Ex.RW1/B whereby the opposite party no.1 had purchased the alleged medicine from M/s Bharat Bhushan Parmod Kumar, Uchana Mandi, Jind. On the other hand, opposite party no.2 has stated that opposite party no.2 has stated that no proper instructions followed by the complainant hence no proper result can be obtained. It is further submitted that there is no defect in the medicine manufactured by the answering opposite party.
8. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that from the report Ex.C7 placed on record it is proved that the complainant had suffered the 80% loss of his wheat crops in 2 acres of land and 60-65% in 3 acres of land due to spray of alleged medicine i.e. Topik purchased from opposite party no.1 and manufactured by opposite party no. 2. On the other hand, opposite parties have failed to prove that no proper instructions were followed by the complainant to use the alleged medicine. In this regard ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon the judgment dated 22.01.2015 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in revision petition no.971 of 2010 titled as M/s Mahodaya Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kishor Ranjan Murumkar etc.. We have also placed reliance upon the law cited in III(2014)CPJ196(Hr.) titled as Shakti Vardhak Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajpal & Ors. whereby Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, Panchkula has held that: “Purchase of seeds-Defects-Loss of crops-Deficiency in service-compensation claimed-District Forum allowed complaint-Hence appeal-Contention, reports submitted by Deputy Director was not as per guidelines issued by Director of agriculture-Not accepted-Constitution of inspection team as per letter of Director of Agriculture and not associating dealer of seeds was not the fault of farmers at all for which they should not be allowed to suffer”, as per II(2008)CPJ 165(NC) titled Ankur Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kondabrolu Hasen Rao & Ors., Hon’ble National Commission has held that: “Agriculture-Seeds-Defective growth of plants noticed-Report of Horticulture Officer produced in support- No expert report produced to counter report of Horticulture Officer- Quantum of compensation awarded by Forum, reasonable, upheld-Revision dismissed” and as per 2008(2)CLT 668 titled India Seed House Vs. Ramjilal Sharma & Anr., Hon’ble National Commission has held that: “It is not expected from every buyer of the seeds to set apart some quantity of seeds for testing on the presumption that seeds would be defective and he would be called upon to prove the same through laboratory testing-A senior office of the Government after visiting the field and inspecting the crop given report under his hand and seal certifying the seeds were defective”. Regarding the manufacturing defect as per 2006(1) 537 titled Raja Mohammad Vs. Dhanabagyam & Anr. Hon’ble Tamil Nadu State Commission, Chennai has held that: “In the event of its being found that there was manufacturing defect and the claimant would be entitled to the relief, there could be an award only against the manufacturer and not against the dealer”. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts & circumstances of the case, it is observed that there was manufacturing defect in the alleged medicine and opposite party no.2 is liable to compensate the complainant.
9. Now the question arises as to what amount of compensation be awarded to the complainant? In this regard it is observed that as per complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant he sowed the seed in the month of November 2010 and at that time the rate of one quintal was approx. Rs.1100/- and in one acre of land approx.15 quintal wheat can be produced. Hence the complainant suffered a loss of crop in 2 acres i.e. 15x2 =30 quintal and in remaining 3 acres i.e.15x3=45 quintal @ Rs.1100/- per quintal. Accordingly the total loss in 2 acres of land comes to Rs.1100/- x 30 = Rs.33000/- and the 80% of the same comes to Rs.26400/- and in 3 acres of land total loss comes to Rs.1100/- 45 = Rs.49500/- and 65% of the same comes to Rs.32175/-. Hence loss of crops in 5 acres comes to Rs.26400/- +32175/- i.e. total Rs.58575/-. It is also observed that in one acre of land, cost of cultivation charges amounting to Rs.1600/-, cost of seeds Rs.1200/- and fertilizer amounting to Rs.1200/- would be suffice to meet out the ends of justice. Cost of medicine as per bill Ex.C5 is Rs.6290/-. Accordingly the complainant suffered a total loss amounting to Rs.58575/-(loss of crops) + Rs.8000/-(1600/- x 5) on account of cultivation charges, +Rs.6000/-(1200/-x 5) on account of seeds+ Rs.6000/-(1200 x 5)on account of fertilizer +Rs.6290/-(cost of medicine) i.e. total amounting to Rs.84865/-.
10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is directed that opposite party No.2 shall pay the compensation of Rs.84865/- (Rupees eighty four thousand eight hundred sixty five only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 23.05.2011 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2200/-(Rupees two thousand two hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of announcement of this order failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of decision. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
11. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs and also sent to opposite party no.2 through registered post.
12. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
25.03.2015.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
