Haryana

StateCommission

A/818/2014

Inderjeet - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bijender - Opp.Party(s)

03 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      818 of 2014

Date of Institution:     17.09.2014

Date of Decision :      03.10.2016

 

Inderjeet son of Nand Ram, resident of Village Badhsa, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar.

          Appellant-Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      Bijender s/o Maya Ram, Proprietor Ganga Khad Beej Bhandar at Pelpa Mode, Badli, District Jhajjar, resident of Villag Pelpa, District Jhajjar.

 

2.      Dhanuka Agritech Limited at Sicop Industrial Estate, I.I.D Centre Battal Baliyan Udhampur, District Udhampur (J&K)-182101.

Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

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

                   Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

      

                                                                                           

Present:     Shri Jitender Nara, Advocate for appellant.

                   Shri Arun Nehra, Advocate for the respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated August 12^th, 2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by him was dismissed.  

2.      Inderjeet-complainant planted four acres of paddy crop in his fields.  The crop was drying day by day.  He purchased two packets of Dhanteen, two packets of Deva 500 ml, four packets of Media 100 ml and Dhanovit 500 ml vide bill No.4444 dated October 08^th, 2012 (Exhibit P-9) from Ganga Khad Beej Bhandar-respondent No.1.  He sprayed the aforesaid insecticides/fungicides but it was of no use.  He approached Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Agriculture Department, Bahadurgarh vide complaint Exhibit P-8.  Agriculture Development Officer, Badli inspected the crop and submitted his report (Exhibit P-10).    

3.      The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from Ganga Khad Beej Bhandar and Dhanuka Agritech Limited-opposite parties.

4.      The opposite parties, in their written version, denied the averments made by the complainant. 

5.      A perusal of the report (Exhibit P-10) of the Agriculture Development Officer shows that 30% of the paddy crop was destroyed by stem borer and the blast has affected 100% plants in form of neck blast.  It has nowhere suggested that the crop was destroyed on account of spurious insecticides/fungicides supplied by Ganga Khad Beej Bhandar. On the report of the Agriculture Development Officer, there is another note of Senior Official that Agriculture Development Officer should take sample from the concerned dealer and further take necessary action.  It is not the case of complainant that any further action was taken by the Agriculture Department on his complaint. 

6.      Once the crop has been affected by blast disease and thereafter spray of insecticide did not revive the crop or did not show proper results, it cannot be presumed that the insecticide was either substandard or did not show desired results. It cannot be a case of adulterated insecticides. Even the report (Exhibit P-10) is silent with regard to the substandard of insecticides.  Thus, the order under challenge requires no interference.  The appeal is dismissed.

 

Announced 03.10.2016

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

(UK)