Haryana

Rohtak

577/2016

Jitender - Complainant(s)

Versus

Haridas Khadh Beej Bandar - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. N.P. Sharma

15 Nov 2017

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Rohtak.
Rohtak, Haryana.
 
Complaint Case No. 577/2016
( Date of Filing : 17 Oct 2016 )
 
1. Jitender
S/o Sh. Samunder Singh R/o Singhpura, also at Village Chuliyana District Rohtak.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Haridas Khadh Beej Bandar
Pilli Khothi, Near Old Bus Stand, Hissar Road, Rohtak.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 15 Nov 2017
Final Order / Judgement

Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

 

                                                          Complaint No. : 577.

                                                          Instituted on     : 17.10.2016.

                                                          Decided on       : 28.09.2018.

 

Jitender s/o Sh. Samunder Singh R/o Singhpura, also at Village Chuliyana, Distt. Rohtak.

                                                          ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

 

  1. Adama Ind. Pvt., Tamar Venkaiah Nagar, Bellary, Chowasta Road, Karnoll, Andra Pardesh-518003.
  2. Haridash Khadh Beej Bhandar, Pilli Kothi, Near Old Bus Stand, Hissar Road, Rohtak.

 

                                                     ……….Opposite parties.

                                                         

 

                    COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

 

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.

                   SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER

                  

Present:       Sh.N.P.Sharma Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Kunal Juneja, Advocate for the opposite parties.

 

                                       

                                      ORDER

 

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

 

1.                          Brief facts of the case are that complainant had  purchased pesticides from the respondent No.2 vide bill no.511527 dated 30.06.2016 for using the same on his rented field at village Chuliyana for the crop of Sugarcane and cotton. That the above mentioned pesticides/goods i.e. Tamar and 2,4 D of respondent inspite of covering the problem and giving the growth rather damaged to the sugarcane crop of the complainant badly.  That complainant also reported the matter to the respondent as well as to the deputy Director of Agriculture for Area, Rohtak, who vide serial No.SPL-1 dated 17.08.2016 investigate the spot/field and accordingly the office of Deputy Director reported the loss upto 70 to  80% on dated 17.08.2016.  The complainant requested the OPs to indemnify the complainant for the alleged loss but to no effect. Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to pay Rs.100000/- for damages in the field, Rs.50000/- for compensation and Rs.15000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

 2.                         After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that OP No.2 sold the product Batch No.TR606016 with seal intact i.e. in as it is condition as purchased from ADAMA India Pvt. Ltd./OP No.1 vide invoice no.241044042 dated 18.06.2016. That OPs have sold bulk quantity of the product to the various distributors/dealers including respondent no.2 but no complaint from any corner has ever been received till date. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and dismissal of complaint has been sought.

3.                          Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand ld. counsel for the opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW1/B, document Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed his evidence. 

4.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                          Perusal of the documents shows that as per copy of inspection report Ex.C1, complainant Jitender has suffered loss of 70-80% to his crops of sugarcane in one acre of land due to spray of alleged pesticide purchased from the opposite parties. On the other hand, contention of ld. counsel for the OPs is that no proper procedure/guidelines were followed by the complainant and OPs were never asked to join the officials of the department of agriculture and has placed reliance upon the law of Adama India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ram Chander of Hon’ble State Commission, Panchkula in first appeal No.1061 of 2016 and order dated 12.05.2005 of Hon’ble NCDRC titled as Hindustan Insecticide Ltd. Vs. Kopolu Sambasiva Rao and others.  

6.                          On the other hand, ld. counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon the law of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi  decided on 14th June, 2018 titled as Indian Farmers Fertilizers Vs. Vijay Kumar & Anr. whereby it is held that: “There is no way a farmer can compel the seed inspector or the committee to follow the procedure prescribed in the seeds rules or the rules famed in circulars, if any, issued hereunder. There will be no justification for penalizing the farmer for such a failure on the part of Seed Inspector or the committee. Reliance has also been placed upon III(2014)CPJ196(Hr.) titled as Shakti Vardhak Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajpal & Ors. whereby Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, Panchkula has held that: “Purchase of seeds-Defects-Loss of crops-Deficiency in service-compensation claimed-District Forum allowed complaint-Hence appeal-Contention, reports submitted by Deputy Director was not as per guidelines issued by Director of agriculture-Not accepted-Constitution of inspection team as per letter of Director of Agriculture and not associating dealer of seeds was not the fault of farmers at all for which they should not be allowed to suffer and Kanta Kantha Rao Vs.Y.Surya Narayana (NCDRC), New Delhi cited in 2017(2)CPJ 549. On the contrary the law cited above by ld. counsel for the OPs is of no help to the OPs as the facts were different in that case.

7.                          After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that due to spray of alleged pesticides in his land, purchased by the complainant from the opposite party no.2 and manufactured by opposite party no.1, the sugarcane crop of one acre of land was destroyed upto the extent of 70 to 80% and this fact is established by the report Ex.C1 given by the officials of Agriculture Department i.e. Q.C.I., ADO and BAO. In view of the same, complaint is allowed and it is observed that complainant has suffered loss of sugarcane crop in 1 acres of land. In one acre of land, there is average production of 235 quintal of sugarcane crop and the rate of sugarcane per quintal is Rs.310/- and the loss of one acre comes to Rs.72850/-. As such we award a sum of Rs.72850/-(Rupees seventy two thousand eight hundred fifty only) alongwith interet @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 17.10.2016 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.

8.                          Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.      File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

28.09.2018.

 

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                         

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Ved Pal Hooda, Member.

 

 

                                                                        ………………………….

                                                          Saroj Bala Bohra, Member

 

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.