Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/190/2018

Subash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Coromand Agro - Opp.Party(s)

Narender Singh Parmar

21 May 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

                                                           

               Complaint Case No. : 190 of 2018

                                                                  Date of Institution    :  19.12.2018

                                                                          Date of Decision      :  21.05.2024    

 

Subhash son of Devi Shah R/o village Mandhana, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

 

          ..…Complainant.

 

  Versus

 

1.Coromandel Agrico Private Limited, A-72, Industrial Area, Sikandrabad-203205 (P), through its Managing Director.

 

2.Tropical Agrosystem India Pvt. Ltd., Head Office 72, Marshalls Road, IVth Floor, Raja Annamalal Building, Chennai-600008 through its Managing Director.

 

2^nd Address: Works: A-74/1 & 2, UPSIDC Industrial Area, Sikandrabad (U.P.)

 

3.Padam Sales Corporation, Lohar Bazar, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani, through its Proprietor/Authorized signatory.

 

                                                                                .…Opposite Parties (OPs).

   

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

 

BEFORE:     Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

Present:        Sh. Narender Singh Parmar, Advocate for complainant.                                      Sh. Ravinder Saroha, Advocate for OP No.1.

                    Sh. Pardeep Vashisth, Advocate for OPs No.2 & 3.

 

ORDER

 

SAROJ BALA BOHRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

1.              Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant is an agriculturist and on 23.08.2018, he purchased pesticides OASIS 250 Gm. and Thaimo Tagzone 100 Gm. from OP No.3, manufactured by OPs No.1 & 2 respectively after paying Rs.620/- for the same. Complainant applied the pesticides in fields but he found that cotton crop was completely damaged. So, he approached OP No.3, however, had to approach OPs No.2 & 3 but of no use. On 04.09.2018, he moved application to C.M. Window as well as Agriculture Officer, Bhiwani, upon which, a team visited the spot on 10.09.2018 and reported that there was 55-60% loss to the crop. Complainant has alleged that he suffered loss of Rs.60,000/- besides mental and physical harassment but no compensation was given. Legal notice dated 01.10.2018 was served upon the OPs but of no avail. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred alleging deficiency in service on part of OPs and thereby suffered loss to his crop.  In the end, complainant has made prayer for issuance of directions to Ops to pay Rs.60,000/- towards loss to the crop and Rs.1.00 lac as compensation for harassment alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase of pesticides till actual realization. Any other appropriate relief has also been sought.

2.              OPs appeared through their respective counsel and filed written statements. 

3.              OP No.1 taken preliminary objections qua maintainability of complaint, mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, non-compliance of provisions of C.P. Act and concealment of true and material facts.  On merits, it is submitted that answering OP is neither the manufacturer nor the supplier of said insecticide OASIS but a marketer of Diafenthiuron bases OASIS Spray which only paralyses the  whiteflies etc. lying immobile on the cotton plants until death in 3-4 days, if used as per instructions prescribed on the level and does not harm the crop in any way. Hence, the complaint against answering OP is not maintainable. It is denied that due to spray of the said pesticide, crop of complainant got damaged.  It is submitted that report of Agriculture Officer does not support the claim of complainant in any way, whether it is the quantum of damage or the reason of damage if there is any attributable to the manufacturer of insecticides. In the end, prayed for any deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of complaint against this OP.

4.              OPs No.2 & 3 filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua concealment of true and material facts and maintainability of complaint.  On merits, it is submitted that complainant had purchased the alleged pesticides from the answering OP but not asked the method of spraying the same in the fields. It is stated that product of answering OP is one of the best product and OPs supplied that product to various customers for the past 14 years but no complaint received so far. In the end, denied for any deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of complaint with heavy costs.

5.              In evidence of complainant, his affidavit Ex. CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-20 were produced and closed the evidence.

6.              No evidence tendered on behalf of OP No.1 despite availing sufficient opportunities, as such, evidence was closed by the Court vide order dated 18.12.2023.

7.              On behalf of OP No.2 affidavit of Sh. Rajesh son of Sh. Raja Ram as Ex. RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure R2/1 and closed the evidence.

8.              On behalf of OP No.3 affidavit of Sh. Padam Chand was filed as Ex. RW3/A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-2 and closed the evidence.

9.              We have heard final arguments from both the sides and have gone through the entire case file minutely. Written arguments on behalf of OPs No.2 & 3 filed.

10.               It is admitted case of OPs No.2 & 3 that complainant purchased the pesticides from it which was manufactured by OP No.2.  However, these OPs have clarified that the loss, if any occurred to complainant due to non-following of instructions for spraying the pesticides. Complainant in order to prove the purchase of the pesticides from OP has placed on record bill (Annexure C-1). In support of his case, complainant has drawn our attention to an inspection report of Agriculture Department which reveals that there was 55-60% loss to the cotton crop of complainant due to spray of the pesticides. Complainant has also placed on record photographs (Annexure C-11 to Annexure C-20) qua loss to the cotton crop.

11.               From the above, it is clear that the loss to the cotton crop of complainant occurred due to spraying of the alleged pesticides.  Since, there is no revenue record placed on file by complainant side to show that in how much area of land the cotton crop was sown, however, during the course of arguments, the counsel for complainant has apprised that the cotton crop in one acre was sown by complainant. Thus, taking an average rate of cotton in the year 2018 as Rs.5500/- per quintal and assessing average yield in one acre about 10 quintal, the total production comes to Rs.55,000/- per acre. As per inspection report (Annexure C-4), loss to the crop was to the extent of 60%, as such, the complainant has suffered loss of Rs.33,000/-. In such a situation, complaint must have suffered mental pain and agonies at the hands of OPs for which complainant is also entitled.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and OPs No.2 being manufacturer is directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the date of passing of this order:-

(i)       To pay a sum of Rs.33,000/- (Rs. Thirty three thousand) to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till actual realization.

(ii)      Also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten thousand) as compensation on account of mental and physical harassment.

(iii)     Further, to pay a sum of Rs.5500/- (Rs. Five thousand five hundred) as litigation expenses.

                    In case of default, the OP No.2 shall liable to pay simple interest @ 12% per annum on all the aforesaid awarded amounts for the period of default.                               If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both. Certified copies of this order be sent to parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced.

Dated:21.05.2024