Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 294.
Instituted on : 12.05.2017.
Decided on : 26.02.2019.
Ramesh, age 40 years, son of Sh. Jagmal Singh, Resident of Village Samargopalpur, Tehsil and District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- ADAMA Agan Limited through its Manager, Northern Industrial Zone, P.O.B. 262, Ashdod, Israel.
2. ADAMA India Pvt. Limited through its Manager, Plot No. DS-13, IKP Knowledge Park, Sy. No. 42/2, Geonome Vally Turukapally, Shameerpet, Ranga Reddy, District Hyderabad-500078.
3. Haridash Khad Beej Bhandar thorugh its Manager, Near NiliKothi, Purana Bus Adda, Hissar Road, Rohtak.
4. Customer Care Cell ADAMA India Pvt. Ltd. through its Manager, Plot No. D-II/CH/1, G.I.D.C. Estate, Dahej, Tel. Vagra, District Bharuch, Gujarat-392130, India.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER
Present: Mrs. Sarita Ahlawat, 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 herbicides medicines from the respondent No.3 manufactured by OP No. 1 vide bill no.11472 dated 20.06.2016 for a sum of Rs.5080/- for using the same on his field at village Samargopalpur for the crop of Sugarcane which is in the area of 3 acres. The complainant sprayed the said herbicides i.e. Tamar etc. over the crops, but to the utter surprise of the complainant the whole crop of sugarcane was spoiled/damaged. After giving the information to OPs, OPs sent a team for verification and the team members assured the complainant that the herbicide spray was defective and the complainant shall be compensated on account of loss suffered due to use of defective herbicide. The complainant also informed regarding the damages caused to the crops to the Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Rohtak. The said S.D.O. constituted a committee consisting of S.N.S.P.P, A.D.O and B.A.O, Rohtak who duly visited and investigate the spot/field and they give their report that the crop sown on three acres of land by the complainant was damaged upto 70 to 80% i.e. almost total due to spray of the herbicides purchased from the OPs. Complainant also sent a legal notice dated 31.08.2016 to the respondents, but the OPs sent a false reply and did not make the payment to the complainant. Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to pay Rs.4,50,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of supply of herbicide medicines to the date of actual realization and Rs.11,000/- 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.3 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.2 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.3 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.C1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and has closed his evidence on dated 08.10.2018. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party No.1, 2 & 4 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document E.xR1 to Ex.R2 and closed their evidence on dated 04.01.2019. Ld. counsel for opposite party No.3 made a statement that the reply already filed on its behalf be read as affidavit in evidence and has closed his evidence on dated 07.12.2018.
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.C3, complainant Ramesh has suffered loss of 70-80% to his crops of sugarcane in three acre of land due to spray of alleged herbicide 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.
6. We have also placed reliance upon the law 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 we also find support to our contention from case titled Kanta Kantha Rao Vs.Y.Surya Narayana (NCDRC), New Delhi cited in 2017(2)CPJ 549.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that due to spray of alleged herbicide in his land, purchased by the complainant from the opposite party no.3 and manufactured by opposite party no.1, the sugarcane crop of three acre of land was destroyed upto the extent of 70 to 80% and this fact is established by the report Ex.C3 given by the officials of Agriculture Department i.e. Quality Control Inspector, Agriculture Development Officer and Block Agriculture Officer.
8. In view of the same, it is observed that complainant has suffered loss of sugarcane crop in 3 acres of land. In one acre of land, there is average production of 300 quintal of sugarcane crop and the rate of sugarcane per quintal is Rs.310/- and the loss of one acre comes to Rs.93000/- and for three acre comes to Rs.279000/-. As the crop was destroyed upto the extent of 70 to 80%, we hereby assess the loss as 75%. As such, complaint is allowed and the opposite party No.1 & 2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,09250/-(Rupees two lac nine thousand two hundred and fifty only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 12.05.2017 till its realization and 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:
26.02.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member
