Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/101/2014

Pala Ram S/o Paras Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gurunanak Pesticides Store . - Opp.Party(s)

Mam Chand

24 Apr 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                           Complaint No. ..101  of 2014.

                                                                                           Date of institution:12.02.2014

                                                                                           Date of decision: 24.04.2017.

Pala Ram aged about 55 years son of Shri Paras Ram, resident of Village Hartan, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               ...Complainant

                                    Versus

Gurunanak Pesticides Store, Kheri Lakha Singh, P.O. Bhagu Majra, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar through its Prop. Jaswinder Chimma.

                           ....Respondent.  

BEFORE:       SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Mam Chand, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

               Sh. Sukhdev Singh, Advocate, counsel for respondent.   

 

ORDER (ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT)

 

1.                     Complainant Pala Ram has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that respondent ( hereinafter referred as OP) be directed to make the payment of Rs. 20,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant due to inferior quality of pesticides and further to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- on account of loss of crop, turi etc. as well as Rs. 5500/- as cost of proceedings.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint,  as alleged in the complaint, are that the complainant purchased one Dibba veto Sclf Slafan from OP bearing Batch No. 132864 for a sum of Rs. 310 vide bill No. 1014 dated 26.12.2013 (Annexure C-1) for the purpose of spray in the wheat crop sown in his land. Thereafter, the complainant sprayed the abovesaid medicine in his field on the standing wheat crop but it is very much unfortunate that only after one week the wheat crop of the complainant started to dry and damage. Complainant approached the OP and told him about the same. Upon this, the OP gave to the complainant one packet of red medicine and asked the complainant to spray the same in the fields on the wheat crop but the same too brought no fruits and went futile. Thereafter, the complainant many times approached to the Op and asked him to compensate him but all in vain as the OP did not accede the genuine request of the complainant. Even after waiting for considerable time, when no result came out and finding no other way, the complainant moved an application to the SDO Agriculture, upon which the Agriculture Development Officer visited the spot with his inspecting team and found that there was 15-20% loss of  wheat due to spray. Lastly, prayed for directing the OP to pay compensation, mental agony, harassment as well as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct; complaint of the complainant is bad for non-joinder f necessary parties because the OP is only a retailer of the said product i.e. Veeto Sclf Salafan, so, the manufacturer of the said medicine is necessary party to implead in the present complaint but the complainant has not impleaded the manufacturer as party and on merit it has been stated that the complainant with his own wish and will had purchased the said company produce and wrongly alleged that he has suffered any loss due to said product. The complainant has not tendered any cogent proof in respect of the damaged suffered by him due to the said medicine so the averments made in the complaint has no truth. The complainant never approached to the OP as alleged in the complaint because complainant has not suffered any loss and damage to his crop. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

4.                     To prove his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A and documents such as photo copy of bill dated 26.12.2013 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of inspection report as Annexure C-2, Photograph of field as Annexure C-3, Copy of application made to Deputy Director, Agriculture, Radaur as Annexure C-4, Copy of application made to S.D.O. Agriculture Office Deputy Director Agriculture, Yamuna Nagar as Annexure C-5 and closed his evidence.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Jaswinder Singh proprietor of Gurunanak Pesticides Store as Annexure RA and closed the evidence on behalf of OP. 

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

7.                     Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased one Dibba Veeto Sclf Slafan from OP bearing Batch No. 132864 for a sum of Rs. 310 vide bill No. 1014 dated 26.12.2013 (Annexure C-1). Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that the complainant sprayed the abovesaid medicine in his field on the standing wheat crop but after one week the wheat crop of the complainant started to dry and damage in his 3 Kanal field of wheat crop then he moved an application to the SDO Agriculture for inspection of the said field. The three officials of the office of Agriculture Department inspected the field of the complainant on 20.01.2014 and prepared a report (Annexure C-2) and the officials of the Agriculture Department mentioned in their report that due to inferior quality of pesticides the wheat crop of the complainant started to dry and damage in his 3 Kanal land and due to this the complainant has suffered a monetary loss and prayed for compensation as alleged above and referred the case law titled as Kalagond Dhulgonda Patil Versus Maharashtra State Seeds Corporation & Others, 1(2012) CPJ page 160 (NC) and also referred another case law titled as India Seed House vs. Ramjilal  Sharma & Another, III (2008) page 96 ( N.C.). and another case law referred as South Eastern Seeds Corporation Versus R. Shekhar @ Sridhar 2008(1) CLT Page 600 National Commission.

8.                     Learned counsel for the OP argued that complainant is only relying upon the report of official of the agriculture (Annexure C-2) but this report is nothing and have no evidently value in the eyes of law as no notice was ever given to the OP before inspecting the filed of the complainant. There is also a mandatory provision under section 13(1) (c ) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 but the complainant has not followed the said provision. Even no khasra number or killa number have been mentioned in the report by the inspecting team and it cannot be stated as to which field the inspection report pertains as the field of the complainant has not been identified from any revenue authority. Lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint and referred the case law titled as Narender Kumar vs. M/s Arora Trading Company and others, 2007(2) CLT page 683 wherein it has been mentioned that Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 13(1)(c )- Procedure-Wheat crop- Pesticides- Herbicides- Loss of wheat crop- Killa numbers and Khasra Numbers of land which was inspected by Agriculture Development Officer has not been mentioned in the report. Thus the report does not pin point the identity of the land of the complainant- For that reason this report cannot be taken into account to support the stand of the complainant- The complainant failed to adduce any evidence on record to establish that he had used adequate quality of herbicide per the instructions- At no stage the complainant had produced the sample before the District Forum for getting it analyzed in terms of the requirements of Section 13(1)(c ) of the Act- District Forum held fully justified in dismissing the complaint.

9.                     Further the learned counsel for the OP referred the case law titled as Anand Singh Versus Khurana Seed Store and Another, 2007 (1) CPC page 95 passed by our own Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula and also referred the case law titled as Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. Versus Kopolu Sambasiva Rao and others 2006 (1) CLT page 223 and Risiga Agro ( India ) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Lakhveer Singh & Others, 2011(2) CLT Page 27.

10.                   The contention of the complainant is that the pesticides in question were of inferior quality and to prove his contention he placed on record the report of Agriculture Department Annexure C-2.

11.                   Before reaching to any conclusion, it is much necessary to examine the report Annexure C-2 minutely. From the perusal of this report (Annexure C-2), it is clear that field of complainant has been inspected by three agriculture officers, whereas as per guidelines/instructions issued by Director of Agriculture, Agriculture Department Panchkula, vide memo No. 52-70 dated 3.1.2002 TA/SS, for spot inspection there should be three officers out of this two officers from Agriculture Department and one from Krishi Vigyan Kender KGK/HAU and one member of the concerned seed agency but in this case neither any scientist from Krishi Vigyan Kender nor any representative from concerned pesticides company has been associated at the time of inspection of the field. Even no respectable person like Sarpacnh, Panch or Lumberdar has been joined by the inspecting team at the time of inspection of the field. Besides it, the said report is also not authenticate because the alleged inspection has been made by the officials of the Agriculture Department without getting the land identified from any official of the revenue department prior to spot inspection as no Killa Number or Khasra number has been mentioned in the report and as such it cannot be said with certainty as to which field the inspection report in question pertains. The same view has been held in case titled as Shamsher Singh Vs. Bagri Beej Bhandar, IV (2013) CPJ page 186 National Commission, it has been held that Agriculture-Defective Seed-Growth of crop not satisfactory-Loss suffered-alleged deficiency in service-District Forum allowed the complaint- State Commission accepted appeal and dismissed the complaint- Hence revision- When there is complaint by the farmers regarding quality of seed, inspection committee has to be constituted comprising two officials of the Agriculture Department, one representative of the concerned seed agency and scientist of Krishi Vigyan Kender- Said inspection had not been followed by the Agriculture Department while giving their report- Factum of the complainant having suffered loss due to poor quality of the seed has not been established by any scientist or other evidence- No illegality or irregularity in impugned order. Revision dismissed.

12.                   There is a mandatory provision under section 13(1)(c ) of the Consumer Protection Act for analysis of insecticides/ herbicides from the appropriate laboratory but the complainant has not followed the said provision nor moved any application to the concerned authority i.e. Agriculture Department or this Forum to get the sample from the OP and send for analysis.  Further no any notice has been served upon the OP prior to inspection of the field and thus the report in question prepared at the back of the OP is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Without any expert evidence on the record as provided in section 13(1)(c ) of the Consumer Protection Act it cannot be said that herbicides/ insecticides sold to the complainant were adulterated and were of inferior quality. Reliance on this point can be taken from the case law titled as Narender Kumar vs. M/s Arora Trading Companies 2007 (2) CLT page 683 and Banta Ram Vs. Jai Bharat and company and others 2013 Volume 2 page 616 National Commission wherein Hon’ble National Commission has held that petitioner had not got the seeds tested from any laboratory as required under provision of section 13(1) ( C ) of the Consumer Protection Act  1986- He had also not moved an application before the concerned authority for getting seed of the same batch, number, tested from any laboratory- report of agriculture department cannot be accepted as no notice of inspection of field for associating them with inspection- Inferior quality of seed not proved. The observations mentioned in the case laws titled as Shamsher Singh Vs. Bagri Beej Bhandar, Narender Kumar vs. M/s Arora Trading Companies & Banta Ram Vs. Jai Bharat and company and others (supra) are fully applicable in the present case.

13.                   Apart from above noted facts, the inspection team has totally failed to explain the criteria for not giving the good result of insecticides/ pesticides mentioned in the report. In the absence of method adopted by the said team, it cannot be said that the criteria adopted by the said committee is correct. Besides this, the agriculture department has categorically mentioned in their report that due to using excess pesticides in the filed the wheat crop in three (3) kanal of complainant has been burnt. Even the complainant has not filed any cogent evidence from which it can be proved that the complainant has suffered any loss on account of crop. So, after going through the above noted discussion and law we are of the considered view that the report Annexure C-2 has no value in the eyes of law and there is no other evidence on the file to prove that herbicides/insecticides in question was of inferior quality.   

14.                   Sequel of the above mentioned discussion is that the complainant has failed to prove any unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Therefore, the complaint of complainant is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 24.04.2017.

             

                                                                              ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                               PRESIDENT

                                                                               DCDRF,YAMUNANAGAR

 

 

 

                  (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)                 (S.C.SHARMA)

                   MEMBER                                                 MEMBER