Haryana

StateCommission

A/739/2016

INDERJEET SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

BIHARI JI TRADING CO. - Opp.Party(s)

ANIRUDH KUSH

07 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                      

                                       First Appeal No.           739 of 2016

                                                Date of Institution        12.08.2016

                                                 Date of Decision                   07.09.2016

 

 

Inderjeet Singh son of Sh. Sheo Parkash, resident of Village Gindra, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

Bihari Ji Trading Company, 23-B, Additional Mandi, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

Respondent-opposite party

 

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                   Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

                                                                                                               

 

For the parties:   Mr. Anirudh Kush, Advocate for the appellant.

                            

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

 

          By filing the present appeal, Inderjeet Singh-complainant has challenged the order dated May 02^nd, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by him was dismissed.

2.      The complainant in his complaint pleaded that on November 12^th, 2012, he purchased two litres Mono pesticide from Bihari Ji Trading Company-opposite party.  He sprayed the said pesticide in his 8 acres of mustard, 4 kanal of green fodder and 2 kanal of vegetables.  After spraying the said pesticide, the crop was burnt. The complainant moved an application to the Agriculture Department to inspect his crops.  The officials of the Agriculture Department gave their report dated February 05^th, 2013 (Annexure A). The complainant requested the opposite party to compensate him but to no avail.

3.      The opposite party, in its reply, pleaded that due to clerical mistake in the bill, name of the pesticide was written as Mono Swat instead of Swat (Gamoxone).  There was no stock of Monostar in the shop on November 12^th, 2012.  As per the report of Agriculture Department, at the time of inspection, there was no mustard crop or green fodder in the field of complainant.

4.      Learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon the report of Agriculture Department (Annexure A). A perusal of the report shows that before inspecting the fields, the mustard crop had been already ploughed, so, question of giving any finding that there was any adulteration in the pesticide supplied by the opposite party, does not arise.  Qua the remaining 4 kanal of green fodder and 2 kanal of vegetables, it was stated that there was possibility of re-germination of the crops.  Be that as it may from the report of the Agriculture Department, it is not possible to hold that any loss had occurred to the complainant on account of spraying the Mono pesticide. As such, the order passed by the District Forum was perfectly right and requires no interference.

5.       The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

 

 

September 07th, 2016

Urvashi Agnihotri Member

B.M.Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

 

U.K