BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 211 of 2013                                                                         

                                                        Date of Institution         :    26.10.2013

                                                          Date of Decision   :   06.10.2016 

Krishan son of Moman son of rura Ram, resident of village Nuhianwali, Tehsil Dabwali District Sirsa.

                      ……Complainant.

                                      Versus.

1. M/s Gupta Pesticides Shop No.21, Sirsa Club, Janta Bhawan Road, Sirsa through its Prop. Brij Mohan Gupta.

2. M/s Sygenta India Ltd., Amar Paradigam, S. No.110/11/6 Baner Road, Baner, Pune through its Director/ Manager.

..…Opposite parties.

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

Before:        SH.S.B.LOHIA …………………………..PRESIDENT

                    SH.RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……….MEMBER.

Present:       Sh. Amit Kumar, Advocate for complainant.

      Sh. JBL Garg , Advocate for opposite party no.1.

                   Sh. Manik Mehta, Advocate for opposite party No.2.

ORDER

                   Case of the complainant, in brief is that complainant alongwith his brothers is owner in possession of land measuring 75 Kanal 19 Marlas situated in village Nuhianwali and complainant is also in possession of land measuring 36 kanals on the basis of lease for the period of two years which he had taken from Om Parkash son of Virbhan. The complainant sowed cotton crop 2012 in the above said land and wanted to spray some insecticide on the cotton crops and on assurance of op no.1, he purchased 8 bags of 1 Kg. each “Polo” insecticide bearing batch no. SPL 2H279 worth Rs.2600/- per Kg. and thus paid total amount of Rs.20,800/- to op no.1 vide bill No.6953 dated 29.8.2012. The complainant sprayed the above said insecticide in his 13 acres of land and followed all the instructions given by op no.2 on the bags. But after the lapse of three days, he was stunned to see that the cotton crop was burnt due to the effect of insecticide. The complainant approached op no.1 and apprised him about the effect of insecticide, returned remaining 3 bags to op no.1 and also requested him to inspect the fields and to pay him adequate amount of compensation but op no.1 refused to do so. On 17.9.2012, complainant moved an application to the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Agriculture Department, Sirsa. On 20.9.2012, the officers of the Agriculture Department visited the fields of complainant and gave a report that the crop is burnt due to effect of insecticide. The complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.2,80,000/- on account of burning of cotton crop for which he has also suffered mental agony and harassment and the complainant is also entitled to compensation of Rs.one lac for harassment besides litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5,000/-. Hence, this complaint.

2.                Upon notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and contested the complaint by filing reply asserting therein that complainant has not got tested the sample of insectide from any laboratory in compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 13 (1) (c) of the Act. The answering op purchased the insecticide in question from op no.2 and sold the same to the complainant in same packed and sealed condition so received from op no.2. The complainant never approached the answering op and never told about the alleged loss to his crop. The complainant never gave any intimation to the answering op about the alleged inspection of field by the officers of Agriculture Department and answering op was never joined in alleged inspection of field of complainant. The report of Agriculture Department does not show the square and kill numbers wherein the alleged inspection was made by the officers of Agriculture Department. Other contents of the complaint have also been denied.

3.                Op no.2 in its separate reply has asserted that complainant has not stated that he used insecticide according to recommendations of manufacturer. The answering op is leading manufacturer/ producer of insecticide in question and has a very well equipped laboratory, were all lots of products are stringently checked before releasing in the market. The answering op never supplied any sub standard or inferior quality of insecticide to its customers all around India. Other contents of the complaint have been denied.

4.                The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PW1, affidavit of Om Parkash son of Veerbhan Ex.PW2 and documents Ex.C1 to C6. On the other hand, op no.1 tendered affidavit Ex.R1, copy of letter dated 3.1.2002 Ex.R2 and copy of invoice dated 24.8.2012 Ex.R3. OP no.2 tendered affidavit of Sh. Rajendera Singh Panwar, Sales Unit Lead Ex.R4.

5.                We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard  learned counsel for the parties.

6.                The main dispute in this complaint is that due to inferior and sub standard quality of insecticide sold by the opposite party no.1 to the complainant, his cotton crop has been burnt. The complainant’s case depends upon the report Ex.C2 of the Agriculture department. We carefully have gone through the report of the officers of Agriculture department.  It would not be out of place to mention here that the officers of the agriculture department have not mentioned the khasra and killa numbers of the land which was allegedly inspected by them. From report Ex.C2 the identity of the land can not be established and such report does not carry any evidentiary value. In an authority of our Hon’ble Haryana State Commission in case Narender Kumar Vs. M/s Arora Trading Company and other 2007(2) CLT 683 it was clearly observed by their Lordship that when the killa and khasra numbers of land which was inspected by the Agriculture Department officer had not been mentioned in the report, the report cannot be taken into account to support the stand of the complainant.

7.                Further, as per letter of Director Agriculture Department dated 3.1.2002 Ex.R2, issued to all the Deputy Directors in the State in which it is directed by the Director Agriculture that inspection team should be consisting of total four members, two officers of Agriculture Department, one representative from concerned seed agency and scientists of KGK/KVK, HAU. In this report, it is mentioned that inspection was conducted by Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Dabwali, Block Agriculture Officer, Odhan and Agriculture Development Officer, Kalawanli and the report is bearing their signatures. This report is not conclusive and the same is defective one as there is nothing on record to prove that notice was issued to Ops for spot inspection. There is also no mention in the report Ex.C2 that representatives of the ops were present in the fields of complainant at the time of inspection and as such report cannot be said to be valid one.

8.                Further, no sample of insecticide was sent to any Laboratory for analysis and learned counsel for ops has contended that same is violation of Section 13 (1) (C) of the Act whereas learned counsel for complainant has contended that it was not the duty of the complainant to get tested the insecticide from any laboratory rather it was the duty of the opposite parties and in this context has relied upon decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as M/s. National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr. 2012 (1) Apex Court Judgments 265 (S.C) wherein it has been held that “Crops failed due to defective seeds. A person selling seeds has to keep sample of seeds sold. Not getting it tested in a designated laboratory for ascertaining the purity of the seeds and/or the extent of germination etc. lends support to the plea that seeds sold/ supplied were defective.”  However, the above said authority is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is own case of the complainant that due to effect on the crop due to insecticide in question, he returned remaining three bags to the op no.1. Therefore, the complainant was very much in possession of sample of insecticide in question and could have get it tested from the laboratory but he has failed to do so. The above said authority cited by learned counsel for complainant would have been applicable here if it would have been the case of the complainant that he was not in possession of any sample of insecticide and sprayed all the quantity of the insecticide in his fields.

9.                So, complainant has failed to prove his case from all angles. Accordingly the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.                                           President,

Dated: 06.10.2016.                                                  District Consumer Disputes

                                              Member.                    Redressal Forum, Sirsa.