Haryana

Karnal

170/2011

Paramjeet S/o Santokh Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Asa Nand Shiv Kumar., United Phosphours Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. R.K. Chauhan

05 Sep 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.170 of 2011

                                                               Date of instt. 28.03.2011

                                                               Date of decision: 25.08.2015

 

Paramjeet son of Sh.Santokh Singh resident of village Sambhi tehsil Nigdhu district Karnal.

 

                                                             ……….Complainant.

                             Versus

 

1.M/s Asa Nand Shiv Kumar  10-11, New Subzi Mandi, Karnal through its prop.Ashwani Dahiya.

 

2.M/s United Phosphours Limited , 3-11, G.I.D.C Vapi 396195(Gujrat) through its Managing Director.

 

                                                           ……… Opposite Parties.

 

                    Complaint U/s  12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma ………Member.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma…..Member.   

         

 Present:       None for the parties.

 

ORDER:

 

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, on  the allegations that he is agriculturist by profession and used to take agricultural land on lease.  He had sown  wheat crop in the agricultural land  measuring 5 acres after taking the same on lease.  Alongwith wheat Mandusi weeds ( Phlaris minor)   also  germinated in the  fields.  In order to destroy Mandusi weeds, he purchased  five  packets of  “Vesta”  herbicide for a total sum of Rs.2750/-, herbicide at the rate of Rs.550/-  each, from the  Opposite Party ( in short OP) no.1, vide bill No. 193 dated 7.12.2011.  The said herbicide was  bearing batch No.1694 and the same was manufactured by OP no.2. The OP no.1 had assured him that  Mandusi would lbe eradicated by spraying the herbicide. The complainant made solution of the said herbicide  and sprayed  uniformally in his five acres of wheat  crop   using  180/200 liters water  per acre , as per directions of OP no.1 and directions mentioned on the   packet of  the said herbicide.  However, he could not get result as there was no control over  Mandusi weeds. After 20 days, he approached the OP no.1 and complained to him, but the OP no.1 asked him to wait for another period of ten days. He again approached the OP no.1  and on his persistent requests OP no.1 agreed to inspect the fields. Accordingly, the OP no.1 visited the fields and admitted the complaint to be true and told that there was manufacturing defect in the herbicide and he would report the matter to the manufacturer, but OP no.1 just adopted delaying  tactics. Thereafter, he moved application  before the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Karnal who constituted a technical committee/board  consisting of Subject matter specialist (PP) Karnal, Sr.Cooridnator, Krishi Vigyan Kendra , CCS HAU (Karnal),. Assistant Plant Protection, Karnal and they visited his fields on 24.2.2011 and made observation that there was no control over Mandusi and they assessed loss to the extent of 25/30% in the wheat crop.  However,  he suffered loss to the  extent of 50% .  The average of wheat per acre in the adjoining fields was 23/24 quintal and thus, he suffered loss of 55 quintals of wheat, approximately amounting to Rs.66,000/- .  By selling herbicide of inferior quality, the Ops committed deficiency in services and adopted unfair trade practice, which caused him mental  and  physical harassment apart from financial loss.

 

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the Ops. OP no.2 put into appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that  the complainant has no locus standi  and cause of action; that the complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his own acts and conduct ; that the complainant is not consumer of the Ops; that the complainant has suppressed the material facts  and that the present complaint is an abuse of the process of law.

 

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the OP no.2 manufactured good quality herbicide  which was approved  by Central Insecticide Board .  The spray has to be done  when the weeds are having 4 to 5 leaves.  The complainant has no where stated as to when he had sown the crop and when spray was done. The product was to be sprayed between 30/50 days. The complainant has not explained procedure adopted by him. It has also been averred that there are various other reasons due to which the   weeds are not destroyed viz   spray on crop which are smaller than 35-50 days, sprayed 2nd irrigation, local metsulfuron addition to the said product, using the said product not as per specifications, weeds other than phlaris in the field, when phlaris are having less than 4 to 5 leaves and not use of proper Nozel.  It has also been submitted that the complainant is not an agriculturist, therefore, he does not know about the use of pesticides, in the crops. The bill showing batch no.1694 was procured and manipulated by the complainant in order to fulfill his evil design and in fact product of OP no.2 was never purchased by him as alleged. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

 

3.                In evidence of complainant, he filed his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4.

 

4.                No evidence  was led by the OP no.2.

 

5.                 The copy of the bill Ex.C2 bearing NO.193 shows that the complainant had purchased five packets of  Vesta from OP no.1.  As per case of the complainant he had sprayed the herbicide in five acres of wheat crop to destroy Mandusi, but the same did not yield any result.  He also moved an application to the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Karnal, who constituted a committee of five persons including OP no.1, but as per version of the complainant committee of only three persons visited the fields. The complainant has alleged that OP no.1 had visited his fields alone and not as member of the committee.  On the report a noting has been given that OP refused to put his signatures. It is not clear as to who gave the said noting. When,   OP no.1 had not visited the fields of the complainant in the presence of other members of the committee, there could   be no   question of giving such note.  Moreover, the BDO who was also named as member of the committee had not visited the fields of the complainant. It is pertinent to note that in the report of the committee Ex.C3, it was not clarified as to when the crop was sown and   whether the spray of the herbicide was made by the complainant as per specifications.  Even it has not been mentioned as to what was  the size of the plants of the wheat and that of Mandusi at the time of  visit.   The report is not clear as to on what basis committee gave observation that  plants of Mandusi became green after some time of spray.  The report does not indicate as to what was the condition of Mandusi plants when the spray was done by the complainant. Therefore, in view of these facts and circumstances, much importance cannot be attached to the report of the committee. Even otherwise, the same is not sufficient to establish that the complainant had used spray as per specifications at proper time.  Under such circumstances, we arrive at the conclusion that the complainant has failed to establish that he had sprayed the herbicide at proper growth of Mandusi and as per specifications and that herbicide was defective. Therefore, we find no deficiency in services on the part of Ops.

 

6.                As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint. Consequently, the complaint is hereby dismissed.  The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:25.08.2015                                                                            

                                                               (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

  (Anil Sharma) (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

   Member               Member.

 

 

Present: None.

 

                            File perused. Vide separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:25.08.2015                                                                            

                                                               (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

  (Anil Sharma) (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

   Member               Member.