Haryana

StateCommission

A/405/2014

Gurdev - Complainant(s)

Versus

Haryali Kissan Bazar - Opp.Party(s)

23 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :       405 of 2014

Date of Institution:       21.05.2014

Date of Decision :        23.05.2016

 

Gurdev s/o Sh. Balwant Singh, Resident of Village Sarai Sukhi, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                      Appellant/complainant

Versus

1.      Haryali Kissan Bazar, New Sugar Mills, Shahabad (M), District Kurukshetra, through its Proprietor.

2.      Haryali Kissan Bazar, Division DCM Siri Ram Consolidated Limited 6^th Floor Kanchan Janga Building 18 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, through its Managing Director (Registered Office).

3.      Summitomo Chemical India Private Limited, Moti Mahal, 7^th Floor 195, J. Tata Road, Church Gate, Mumbai-40020 (Manufacturer).

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Kanwal Deswal, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Munish Bansal, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2.

None for respondent No.3.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

The unsuccessful complainant is in appeal against the order dated April 16^th, 2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint was dismissed. 

2.                Gurdev-complainant/appellant, purchased 13 packets of herbicide (Leader) from Haryali Kissan Bazar-Opposite Party No.3 for Rs.4490/-, on December 6^th, 2010 vide bill Annexure-A.  Out of 13 packets, he sprayed 9 packets of the herbicide in 9 acres of wheat crop but it did not destroy the Mandusi (Kharpatwar).  He approached the Deputy Director Agriculture, Kurukshetra, vide application dated January 17^th, 2011 (Annexure-B). The Deputy Director Agriculture constituted a team of agriculture experts consisting of Sub Divisional Officer Agriculture, Thanesar; Subject Matter Specialist and Subject Matter Specialist (Plants Protection), Kurukshetra. The team of the agriculture experts inspected the fields of the complainant on January 27^th, 2011 and submitted report Annexure A-3 stating that there were about 90 plants of Mandusi per square meter in complainant’s wheat crop. He filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act’).

3.                The Opposite Parties/respondents No.1 and 2 in their joint reply pleaded that the complainant had not complied with the provision of Section 13 (1) (C) of the Act and therefore it could not be said that the herbicide supplied to the complainant was defective. The report (Annexure-B) nowhere suggest that the herbicide supplied to the complainant was defective.

4.                The opposite party No.3 did not contest the complaint and was proceeded exparte.

5.                Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant has argued that the herbicide purchased by appellant from respondent No.1 was defective because the same did not destroy the Mandusi from the wheat crop. In support reliance was placed upon the report Annexure A-3 of agriculture experts.

6.                The contention raised is not tenable. No notice was given to the respondents by the agriculture experts before inspecting the fields of the appellant. Support to this view can be had from the judgment rendered by Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.1295 of 2014, Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-op. Limited vs. Shri Ram Swaroop, decided on 26^th November, 2014.  Moreover, there is no mention in the report (Annexure A-3) that the herbicide supplied by the respondents to the appellant was either defective or did not conform to the prescribed standard. So this report is of no help to the appellant. No laboratory report has been produced by the appellant to prove that the herbicide did not conform to standard laid down or that it was adulterated in any manner. Merely because it did not give desired effects, may be that its dilution/mixture was not properly prepared or that it was not properly sprayed, cannot be ground to presume that herbicide was defective.  In view of this, no case for interference is made out.

7.                Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

 

Announced 23.05.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL