BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 37 of 2013                                                                           

                                                         Date of Institution         :    25.01.2013

                                                          Date of Decision   :   07.10.2016 

Jaswant Singh, aged about 38 years son of Shri Jagmal Singh, resident of village Bharokhan, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                      ……Complainant.

                                      Versus.

1. Babbar Beej Bhandar, 58-59, Janta Bhawan, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa, through its proprietor/ partner.

2. M/s Syngenta India Limited, Amar Paradigm, S. No.110/11/13 Baner Road, Banor, Pune-411045, through its proprietor, owner or authorized person.

..…Opposite parties.

                      Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SH.S.B.LOHIA …………………………..PRESIDENT

                SH.RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……….MEMBER.

Present:       Sh. M.M. Pareek, Advocate for complainant.

      Sh. Manik Mehta, Advocate for opposite parties.

ORDER

                   Case of the complainant, in brief is that complainant had purchased one bag of pesticide Polo, bearing batch No.258 on 20.8.2012 for an amount of Rs.2600/- from opposite party no.1 vide cash memo No.1273 dated 20.8.2012. The above said pesticide was purchased by him for spraying on the narma crops in five acres of land. However, the said product did not give fruitful result rather it caused damages to the crops. Had the original and genuine pesticides been given and supplied to the complainant, the production of the narma crop would have been about 40 munds per acre but the production was merely about 10 munds per acre and therefore, the complainant has suffered total loss of Rs.3,60,000/- which the ops are liable to pay to the complainant. The complainant had reported the matter to the Agriculture Department but the officials concerned did not take any action under the influence of the ops and in collusion with them. The complainant also approached the ops and requested to pay the aforesaid amount but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite party no.1 admitted the sale of above said pesticide to the complainant but stated that product of op no.2 is one of the best in quality. Several other farmers had also purchased said pesticides from op no.1 but there is no such complaint from any of the farmers except the present one. The complainant has not mentioned in the complaint that he used pesticides according to recommendations. It is denied that agriculture department has not visited the spot under the influence of ops as alleged rather complainant has concealed the facts that agricultural officer visited the spot and clearly reported that there is no loss of Narma crop due to spray of pesticide Polo. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.

3.                OP no.2 in its separate reply also contested the complaint on similar lines as that of op no.1.

4.                The complainant has placed on file his affidavit Ex.PW1/A, affidavit of Bhag Singh neighbour of land Ex.PW2/A, khasra girdawari for the year 2012-13 Ex.C1, bill dated 20.8.2012 Ex.C2 and copy of jamabandi Ex.C3. On the other hand, ops have placed on file affidavit Ex.R1, inspection report of Agriculture Department Ex.,R2 and affidavit Ex.R3.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.

6.                The complainant has wrongly averred that after reporting the matter to the Agriculture Department, the officials did not take any action under the influence of the ops rather from the inspection report Ex.R2 placed on file by the ops, it is evident that Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Sirsa and Agriculture Department Officer, Panihari visited the field of the complainant on 22.10.2012 and inspected his field where the pesticide in question was sprayed by him. The Agriculture Officers in their report Ex.R2 reported that there was no loss of crop in three acres and four canal of land and complainant had already got the crops in the said land for two times and there was possibility of 12/13 munds crops in the said land for third time. They have further reported that in another two acres of land, there was possibility of yield of 3/4 munds and there was no sign of damage to the crops in whole of the land due to the pesticide and a period of more than one month had already elapsed after spraying pesticide, so at that time it was not possible to know the reason of damage. So the above said report of the Agriculture Department does not pin point any defect towards the pesticide in question. As the complainant could not get favourable report in his favour, so he has concealed about the said report and he is guilty of suppression of material fact. There is no other expert opinion on the file that any loss was caused to the crop of the complainant due to effect of pesticide sold by op no.1. 

7.                So, complainant has failed to prove his case. Accordingly the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.                                           President,

Dated: 07.10.2016.                                                 District Consumer Disputes

                                              Member.                       Redressal Forum, Sirsa.