THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 168 of 2013.
Date of Institution: 08.04.2013.
Date of Decision: -31.03.2017.
Mahabir son of Sh. Amar Singh, resident of village Golagarh, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- Rajbir Singh, Incharge Chaudhary Agriculture Store Jui, District Bhiwani.
- Safex Chemicals India Ltd. Plot No. 22, 2nd Centre Battal Ballian, District Udampur (J & K).
- Saraswati Agro Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. Lane 2, Phase 1, SIDCO Industrial Complex Bari Brahmana, District Jammu (J & K).
- Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd. 1st Pandllel Road Industrial Growth Centre Samba, Jammu (J & K).
…...OPs.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Mrs. Sudesh, Member
Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member
Present:- Shri Kuldeep Legha, Advocate for complainant
None for Ops no. 1 & 2.
Shri M.L. Sardana, Advocate for OP no. 3.
Shri Balbir Sharma, Advocate for OP no. 4.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that the complainant had sown the crops of gum/guwar in the 4.5 acre land and crops were healthy and fully grown up before the use of defective pesticide. It is alleged that the crops was effected by the Fungus decease so complainant consulted with the agriculture advisor who recommended to bring the pesticide from the Choudhary Agriculture store from Jui, District Bhiwani. It is alleged that when complainant consulted with the proprietor Rajbir Singh OP no. 1 who advised to the complainant that firstly I would inspect the guwar’s plot and after that I should give you proper medicine. It is alleged that on 28.08.2012 Rajbir visited and inspected the guwar crops and advised the complainant to use the spray on the guwar. It is alleged that the complainant moved application before the Deputy Director Agriculture Bhiwani for examination for the guwar crops and after examination the guwar crops team advised that crops had been damaged due to wrong use of pesticide. The complainant also served legal notice dated 27.10.2012 on the Ops but to no avail. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such, he has to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.He
2. On appearance, OP no. 1 has filed written statement alleging therein that it is not in the knowledge of answering respondent whether he has shown the crop of guwar. It is submitted that the complaint is wrong, qua the answering respondent because the Ops no. 2 to 4 are manufacturing industry. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 1 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. OP no. 2 filed separate written statement alleging therein that the company has been selling good chemical spray i.e. Shine Start and there is no complaint whatsoever from any corner. It is submitted that the crop also could not be grown up due to termiticide in the land because the termiticide used to eat the crops, as a result of which there is no question of growing the crop. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 2 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. OP no. 3 also filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant has not placed on record any bill of alleged purchase of pesticides. It is submitted that there is no evidence on record which shows that the product manufactured by the answering respondent was inferior in quality. It is submitted that the complainant has not mentioned the procedure adopted by him at the time of preparation of the solution and the method adopted by him at the time of alleged spray in his fields. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 3 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
5. OP no. 4 filed written statement alleging therein that there is no complaint and information of the alleged purchases to the answering respondent and answering respondent have no responsibility and liability in this case because OP no. 1 is neither dealer nor a authorized person to sell the product of OP no. 4 and no product was supplied by OP no. 4 to OP no. 1. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 4 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
6. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record affidavit Annexure CW1/A and documents Annexure C2 to Annexure C5.
7. On the other hand, the Ops has placed on record documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-3.
8. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
9. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the guwar crop of the complainant was effected by fungus, so the complainant consulted the Agriculture Advisor, who recommended to purchase the pesticides from OP no. 1. The complainant approached the OP no. 1, who after the inspection of the crop of the complainant given the pesticides of 3 different chemicals on 30.08.2012 vide bill Annexure C-4. The complainant used the said pesticides by spraying on the crops. After the spray of the said pesticides, the crops of guwar was damaged. The complainant moved an application to the Deputy Director who after the inspection on 26.09.2012 submitted his report dated 26.09.2012. The crops have been damaged due to the use of pesticides by the complainant and claim the compensation for the loss of the crop.
10. Learned counsel for OP no. 3 & 4 reiterated the contents of their reply, respectively. They submitted that as per the allegation of the complainant he had purchased 3 pesticides namely Shinestar, Veerzim and Krosin-AG and used them together in the fields. As per the inspection report dated 26.09.2012, the Haryana Agriculture University, Hisar has not recommended spray of said pesticides for the treatment of fungus in guwar crop. The quantity of the pesticides should not exceed the recommended limit but the complainant has used the pesticides in a very high quantity then it can cause loss to the crop. They further submitted that the pesticide in question is not of inferior quality nor of expiry date.
11. The counsel for the OP no. 4 submitted that the OP no. 4 or his authorized dealer did not sell the alleged product to the complainant. The said product was not sold by the OP no. 4 to the OP no. 1 from whom the complainant had purchased the said product. He further submitted that no expert opinion has been sought by the complainant regarding the quality of product.
7. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record carefully. The complainant has claimed that his guwar crops has been damaged due to the spray of 3 pesticides which was purchased by him from OP no. 1, on the recommendation of Agriculture Advisor, the complainant has not produced any prescription of the said agriculture advisor. It has been alleged by the complainant that the OP no. 1 has given the said pesticides after inspecting of his fields. The complainant has produced the inspection report. According to the said report, the use of said pesticides has not been recommended by the Haryana Agriculture University, Hisar. It has also been mentioned in the said report the complainant has used the mixture of 3 pesticides which can cause loss to the crops nor this type of mixture has been recommended by the Haryana Agriculture University, Hisar in the guwar crops. Admittedly, the use of said pesticides in the guwar crop by the complainant is against the guidelines of the Haryana Agriculture University, Hisar. The complainant has tried to lay the responsibility for the use of said pesticides on OP no. 1, from whom he had purchased the pesticides by alleging that the OP no. 1 the Proprietor of the firm after inspection of his guwar crop advised the spray of said pesticides. The OP no. 1 in his written statement filed in this case, has contended that the answering respondent never visited the field of the complainant. It has been further contended by OP no. 1 that he has also replied to the legal notice of the complainant through his counsel. The copy of reply is Annexure C-3, which has been purchased by the complainant on the record. It is not the case of the complainant that the pesticides supplied by the Ops were of inferior quality. In these circumstances, we do not find any substance in the complaint of the complainant. The complaint of the complainant is dismissed being devoid of merits. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 31.03.2017. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Parmod Kumar) (Sudesh)
Member. Member.
