Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 634.
Instituted on : 23.11.2016.
Decided on : 25.03.2019.
Chattar Singh s/o Sh. Kanhiya Lal, R/o village Chuliyana Duhan Tehsil Sampla District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Haryana Khad Bhandar, Jhajjar Road, Sampla(Haryana) through its proprietor/Authorized signatory.
- Insecticide India Ltd. 401-02, Lusa Tower, Azadpur Commercial Complex, through its Manager/Proprietor/Authorized signatory.
- Crop chemicals India Ltd., 1st Floor, Bagri Association, Fountain Chowk, Jind, through its Manager/Proprietor/Authorized signatory.
- Shankar Dass Jagdish Kumar, 119, New Anaj Mandi, Bhiwani through its Manager/Proprietor/Authorized signatory.
- M/s PI Industry Ltd., Regd. Office at PB No.20, Udaisagar Road, Udaipur-313001,(Rajasthan) Branch office at : M/s PI Industries Ltd., C/o M/s Ramja Mal Telu Ram, Rajveer Sangwan Premises, Pingli Road Karnal-132001.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Ved Pal Khasa, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Sanjeev Batra, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh.Vinay Khatri, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
Sh. Rajesh Sharma Advocate for opposite party No.3.
Sh.H.C.Sikri, Adocate for opposite party No.4.
Sh.M.L.Wadhwa Advocate for opposite party No.5.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.07.2016 complainant had purchased Kharpatwar medicines 200 ML N.Gold 15 NGP/15-2, 500 gm Atrogold cck/1103 and Weedgrip 40040 from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.1400/-(wrongly mentioned as Rs.5400/-) as per receipt No.837 dated 25.07.2016. That the opposite party supplied the inferior quality of kharpatwar medicines. That the complainant, by following the due caution and prescribed instructions had sprayed the same over the 2, 2½ acre of crops of Dhan situated in the revenue estate of village Chuliana District Rohtak. That due to spray of said Kharpatwar medicines, the crops of Dhan has been suffered damage and complainant complained about the same to the respondent no.1 and requested to inspect the site. That respondent visited the site but did nothing. That at the request of the complainant the A.D.A.O., Rohtak inspected the site and gave his report vide which about 70 to 80% of the crops were damaged. That complainant suffered a huge loss of Rs.250000/- on account of loss of yields of Dhan. That complainant requested the opposite party to compensate him for the alleged loss suffered by him but any heed was not paid to his requests. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay Rs.250000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of supply of seeds till its realization and also to pay litigation expenses etc. as explained in relief clause.
2. On notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their separate written statement. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that answering opposite party has supplied a good quality Kharpatwar medicines to the complainant. The same were received by him from Insecticides India Ltd. and Crop Chemicals India Ltd. and Shankar Dass Jagdish Kumar in packed conditions. The answering respondent is only a seller of said Kharpatwar medicines and is not the manufacturer of same. The answering respondent is not liable for any loss suffered by the complainant in any manner and he is not liable to pay any compensation to him. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with cost.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that that the complainant has used the herbicides without any consultation and used the herbicides which are not approved and manufactured for the purpose of crop in which the herbicides were applied. That if the crop has been damaged that there can be possibility of such damage due to use of Atrazin which is not prescribed and recommended for the crop of DHAN. That the answering respondent has supplied the herbicide of same batch to various distributors to a large extent but till date no complaint has been received from any corner which itself suggest that the quality of herbicide was of a good quality and there was no inferiority in the same. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
4. Opposite party No.3 in its reply has submitted that the complainant himself acted negligently and use the herbicide without any consultation and without recommendation hence no loss can be attributed to any of the companies and the complainant is himself responsible for the loss suffered by him if any. Opposite party no.4 in its reply has submitted that M/s Shankar Dass Jagdish Kumar 119. New Grain Market, Bhiwani, is authorized distributor of M/s PI industries Ltd. and had purchased bulk quantity of Nominee Gold Herbicides product bearing batch no.15NGP 15-2, date of manufacturing 04.04.2015, expiry date 3.4.2017, vide invoice dated 29.09.2015 and sold the same product to various dealers/shopkeepers throughout Haryana vide invoices of various dates including the respondent no.1 M/s Haryana Khad Bhandar, Sampla. However, it is stated that the aforesaid product/Herbicides was sold to the respondent no.1 and other dealers/shopkeepers with seal intact i.e. in as it is condition, as was purchased from M/s PI Industries Ltd. vide invoice dated 29.05.2015. That the answering opposite party has not received any complaint from any farmer/dealer/shopkeepers till date regarding the aforesaid product and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
5. Opposite party no.5 in its reply has submitted that the Nominee Gold alleged to be purchased by the complainant with batch number 15 NGP 15-2 vide bill dated 25.07.2016 for Rs.1200/- was required to be tested in a state lab of Govt. of Haryana or by Central laboratory at Faridabad. That since the procedure prescribed under Section 13(1)(c)of the Act has not been followed by the Agriculture department , without that it could not be possibly opined that the material purchased by the complainant was misbranded and that the loss has been suffered by the complainant on account of the material purchased by the complainant, hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
6. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
7. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1/1 and has closed his evidence on 17.10.2018. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.RW2/1 to Ex.RW2/13 and has closed his evidence on 27.09.2018. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No.3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A, documents Ex.R3/1 to Ex.R3/5 and has closed his evidence on dated 27.09.2018 of this Forum. Opposite party no.4 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW4/A, documents Ex.R4/1 to Ex.R4/24 and has closed his evidence. Opposite party no.5 made a statement that reply already filed in this case be read in evidence as affidavit and tendered documents Ex.OP5/1 TO Ex.OP5/3 and closed his evidence on dated 08.02.2019. However opposite party no.1 did not appear and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 09.01.2017 of this Forum.
8. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
9. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per bill complainant had purchased medicines nominigold 200ML, Atrazin 500gm and weedgrip from opposite party no.1. The contention of complainant is that due to use of alleged medicines in his crops, the crops of the complainant were destroyed. To prove his contention, complainant has placed on record report of Agriculture Department Ex.C5. On the other hand, contention of opposite party No.2 is that as per the alleged report of the agricultural officer, the farmer has used nominigold 200ML, Atrazin 500gm and Weedgrip. The Atrazin 500gm is not recommended for the crop of DHAN and the same is only recommended for Jawar, Sugarcane, Barjra and maize. It is very strange that as per the perusal of Ex.C5, it is submitted by the Agriculture Development Officer and Block Agriculture Agriculture Officer that the crop has been destroyed due to use of Nominigold, Atragin and weedgrip medicines but it is not told by the officers that the medicine Atrigin used by the complainant was not recommended for the crop of Dhan. Hence the report prepared by the Agriculture officers is false and fabricated. Before purchasing the alleged medicines, the complainant should have consult the Agriculture Officers for the purpose of purchase of medicines approved for the Dhan Crop. But the same is not done in this case and the complainant on his own had purchased the same from the opposite party.
10. Hence from the alleged report, it is itself proved that complainant has used the Atragin medicine which were not recommended for crop of Dhan. The complainant had used the medicines which are not approved and manufactured for the purpose of crop in which the herbicides were applied and had not taken the consultation of any expert. As such there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
11. 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:
25.03.2019. ................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
