BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint No. 84 of 2017
Date of Institution : 10.04.2017
Date of Decision : 18.07.2019
Kashmir Singh aged about 61 years son of Shri Lal Singh r/o village Sikenderpur Tehsil & District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus
1.Gupta Pesticides, Shop No.21, Janta Bhawn Road, Sirsa, Tehsil & District through its proprietor.
2.M/s Rama Pesticides, 5-6 Janta Hospital Road Sirsa through its proprietor vide bill No.4814 dated 05.09.2016.
3.M/s Gopal Dass and sons, 13-14, Sirsa Club Janta Bhawan Road Sirsa through its proprietor Vide bill No.53986 dated 25.07.2016
4.M/s Shree Ganesh Fertilizers, 5, Sirsa Club, Sirsa through its proprietor vide bill No.6606 dated 30.08.2016.
5.M/s Subhash Chander Harish Chander, 120 Nai Mandi Sirsa through its proprietor vide bill No.4455 dated 03.09.2016.
6.M/s Shri Ram Fertilizers and Chemicals, Regional Office; Kisan Complex, Sirsa Road Backside B.D. Oil Mills, Hisar through its Manager.
7.M/s Narang Pesticides Booth No.7, New Anaj Mandi Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL………… MEMBER
MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. R.K.Verma, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. J.B.L.Garg, Advocate for Op No.1.
Sh. H.S.Raghav, Advocate for Op No.2.
Sh. D.C.Solanki, Advocate for Op No.3.
Sh. S.K.Garg, Advocate for Op No.4.
Sh. Ashish Singla, Advocate for Op No.5.
Op No.6 given up.
Op no.7 exparte.
ORDER
The case of complainant, in brief, is that the complainant had purchased pesticide from Op No.1 vide bill No.13910 dated 07.09.2016, which he had used in his three acres of land, as per the directions and guidance of the Ops but despite that the crop of the complainant did not gain height and also not produced any fruit. Besides this, 60 to 70 % of the crop also got burnt. It all happened due to duplicate pesticide, allegedly sold by the Op No.1. On the application of the complainant, officials of Agriculture Department inspected the fields of the complainant on 26.09.2016 and in the report the height of paddy crop has been mentioned as 3-3.5 feet and also opined 35-40 % financial loss to the farmer. Due to the duplicate and inferior quality of the pesticide, which the complainant had purchased from Op No.1, he has suffered mental agony, harassment and financial loss. The act and conduct of the Op clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice Ops No.1 to 5 appeared. Op No.6 has been given up by learned counsel for the complainant by making his separate statement dated 14.05.2019 whereas the Op No.7 has refused to receive the summons, therefore, it was proceeded against exparate vide order dated 27.02.2019. Op No.1 in its reply has submitted that the complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint and the present complaint has been by concealing the material facts from this Forum. The present complaint is not maintainable as the report of the Agriculture Department is not in accordance to the letter memo No.52-70/TA (SS) dated Pkl the 03.01.2002. The complainant had purchased the pesticide as per his requirement and the answering OP had sold duly packed and sealed containers of these pesticides to the complainant which he had received from distributor of manufacturing company. The complainant has never reported any loss to the answering Op. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3. Op No.2 in its reply has submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable being filed with ulterior motive. The complainant has never approached to the answering Op before the purchase of the pesticide and after the purchase of the pesticide. The pesticides were supplied to the Op No.1 in sealed packing and the same were of high quality and advanced level. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4. OP No.3 in its reply has submitted that that the present complaint is not maintainable and the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer. It is not clear as to which kind and quality of pesticides have been purchased by the complainant and that over which kind of crop the same has been used by him. The answering OP had purchased the pesticide from Sumitomo Chemical India and had sold the same to M/s Gupta pesticide in the sealed condition, therefore, question of duplicate pesticide does not arise at all. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
5. Op No.4 in its reply has submitted that the complainant has come to this Forum with clean hands and he is estopped from filing the same by his own act and conduct. The Op No.1 had purchased some material from the answering OP vide bill No.6606 dated 30.08.2016 through shanty fertilizers vide bill No.13044801 dated 19.08.2016 and the same was sold to Op No.1 in a sealed pack and thereafter the answering Op is unaware of the fate of the said pesticide. There is no deficiency in service on its part. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
6. Op No.5 in its reply has submitted that it had purchased the pesticide namely Pharlap Batch No.010 from M/s Narang Pesticide vide invoice No.7214 dated 03.09.016. The complainant is not consumer of the answering OP as he had not purchased anything from it. Other contentions have been contorverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
7. Thereafter the parties have led their respective evidence.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
9. The complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.C5 in which he has reiterated all the contents of his complaint. The complainant has also produced documents Ex.C1 invoice dated 07.09.2016, inspection report Ex.C2, application for sending report Ex.C3, application for inspection Ex.C4. On the other hand learned counsel for the Op No.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh.Ramesh Kumar Ex.RW1/A wherein he has reiterated the version taken in the written statement and also tendered document Ex.R1 invoice, Ex.R2 another invoice whereas learned counsel for the Op No.5 has tendered affidavit of Rajiv Gupta Ex.RW2/A wherein he has reiterated the version taken in the written statement. Learned counsel for the Op No.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh.Brij Mohan Gupta in evidence and also tendered document invoice Ex.R3 whereas learned counsel for the Op No.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh.Sushil Kumar wherein he has deposed in terms of the lines mentioned in the written statement and also tendered document i.e. invoice Ex.RB and another invoices dated Ex.RC and Ex.RD.
8. The perusal of the complaint reveals that the complainant has filed this complaint with the averments that he had purchased pesticides for an amount of Rs.2000/- from Op No.1 and used the same in his field, which resulted in loss of crop to the extent of 35 to 40 %. He has relied upon the report of the Agriculture Department Ex.C3. Perusal of the complaint reveals that the complainant has not mentioned the Killa number in which he has sown the crop. He has further not mentioned the name of crop and name of the pesticide which was used by him on the standing crop. The perusal of report Ex.C2 reveals that it does not find mentioned any Killa number of the land of the complainant, nor the officials of the agriculture department have mentioned the fact that they have ever got the land demarcated from the Halqa Patwari before conducting any inspection proceedings, nor they called any Numberdar of the village in order to ascertain the land of the complainant. The report does not find mentioned that the loss of the crop to the extent of 35 to 40 % was due to use of pesticides. So, it appears that the report submitted by the Agriculture Department is not sufficient to hold the dealer, manufacturer and distributor responsible. It has been further observed that the dealer was directed to produce the pesticide in order to send the same for analysis to the analyst lab, but however, the report is silent qua the fact whether any sample was sent to the lab or not. This all, leads that that the complainant has failed to prove his case by leading cogent and convincing evidence against the Ops, therefore, the present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:18.07.2019 District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member Member
DCDRF,Sirsa DCDRF,Sirsa
