Haryana

Ambala

CC/95/2017

Rachan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Garg Beej stores - Opp.Party(s)

Harsh Kumar

14 May 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 95 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution         : 29.03.2017

                                                          Date of decision   : 14.05.2018

 

Rachan Singh s/o Sh.Banarasi Dass resident of village Mehmoodpur Tehsil & District Ambala (Haryana).

……. Complainant.

                                         Versus

 

1. Garg Beej Stores, Shambu- Tepla Wale, Spatu Road, Near Do-Khamba Chowk, Ambala City (Marketer/supplier of Addresses No.2 to 5).
2. Ms.German Agro Chemicals, D-15, Industrial Area,GT Road, Shahadra, Delhi-110095 (Manufacturer/Marketer/supplier of Panther Super Lambdacyhalothrin 5 % EC).
3. Sahib Pesticides, VPO, Chaura, District Karnal, Haryana-132114/

(Manufacturer/marketer/supplier of Buprofezin 25 % SC 2 Naka)

4. Pioneer pesticides Pvt. Ltd. village Behra, Tehsil Derabassi, District SAS, Nagar, Mohali, (Manufacturer/marketer/supplier of Averest Validamycin 3 % L)
5. Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd. Regd. Office: 29, Lala Lajpat Rai Sarani, Eligin Road, Kolkatta-700020 (Manufacturer/marketer/supplier of Kri-Stop 2X 500)

….…. Respondents.

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER         

                   MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                 

 

Present:       Sh.Harsh Kumar, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh.Ashish Sareen, counsel for OP No.1 to 4.

                   Sh.Pardeep Batra, counsel for OP No.5.

         

ORDER:

                   Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is in the occupation of farming by taking the land on rental basis & had taken four acres of agriculture land on yearly rent of Rs.35,000/- per acre and had sowed paddy crop in the said land for which the seeds, urea & pesticides were purchased from OP No.1 through whom OP’s No.2 to 5 carried out their business of sale of pesticide, medicines etc.  The Op No.1 had assured that the seeds, urea and pesticides was sowed/sprayed by employee of Op No.1. On believing the same the complainant had spent an amount of Rs.24,000/- for ploughing the four acres of land for engaging labor for planting paddy saplings in the same. Besides this the complainant has spent an amount of Rs.2160/- for purchasing of urea and Rs.9630/- vide bill No.5420 dated 28.09.2016.  The complainant had followed/ implemented all instructions/ directions given by the OPs in sowing the same but the whole crop of paddy was destroyed by the use of sowing seeds & spraying pesticides/ medicines. On the request of the complainant appropriate authorities had inspected the fields and assessed the crop loss of 80 to 90 % of total yield and the loss comes to Rs.2,88,000/- being value of 48 quintals of Basmati rice. The complainant requested the Ops and also got served legal notice upon them to make the loss good but to no avail. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavits Annexure CW1/A, Annexure CW2/A and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C11, Annexure C11A to Annexure C11D.

2.                Upon notice OPs appeared and filed their separate replies. OP Nos.1 to 4 in their joint reply have taken preliminary objections such as jurisdiction and non-compliance of Section 13 (i) (c) of CP Act. The complainant has not submitted any expert report regarding the procedure adopted by him in using herbicide. The complainant has not mentioned on which date the germination work was completed and the present complaint has been filed with ulterior motive as the loss to crop is depend upon poor germination and various factors are responsible for the same like inferior quality/mix quality of seeds and any sort of infection on crop, use of wrong pesticides, proper preparation of the land, fertilization, pest and disease control, proper irrigation, climate and seasonal conditions which are not in the control of human agency. The contents regarding inspection of fields do not show any problem rather the report has been prepared in connivance with the complainant and officers.  Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

                   Op No.5 in its reply has submitted taken preliminary objections such as locus standi, jurisdiction and not maintainability of complaint. The complainant has not produced any document of ownership of agricultural land nor has any rent deed also been produced on the case file.  The complainant has never informed/ lodged any complaint or any sort of notice to it about damage of the crop and the loss has not been assessed in the presence of representative of the company.  Other contentions have been denied and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the OPs have tendered affidavits Annexure RA, Annexure RW5/A and document Annexure R1.

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

5.                In order to resolve the matter in question it is necessary to go through the inspection report Annexure C-3 made by the Agriculture Officers, Ambala wherein it has been mentioned that there was effect of Plant Hopper on the crop  and the farmer had not used the medicines/pesticides recommended by Haryana Agriculture University, Hisar and he had used another pesticides, therefore, it was not controlled and the disease went on increasing, therefore, there is every possibility that the crop may suffer loss upto 80-90 %.  It is worthwhile to mention here that the report Annexure C3 is the base of the present complaint but when this report is vanished from the evidence then there remains nothing on the file. This very report does not indicate anything to show that the pesticides/ seeds allegedly purchased by the complainant from Op No.1 was defective and due to this the complainant has suffered loss.  Moreso, the complainant has not even moved an application under Section 13 (1) (c) of C.P. Act before this Forum to seek expert opinion because the present case is not related to adulteration or defective seeds rather the present case relates to use of pesticides.

6.                          Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case this Forum has reached at the conclusion that the present complaint deserves dismissal. Accordingly, we dismiss the present complaint leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

Announced on: 14.05.2018                                                                                                               

 

 

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)    (ANAMIKA GUPTA)     (D.N. ARORA)

          Member                                Member                                President