Haryana

Ambala

CC/317/2018

Dharam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

India Pesticides Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

20 Nov 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint Case No.: 317 of 2018.

                                                          Date of Institution   : 01.10.2018.

                                                          Date of decision    :  20.11.2019.

 

Dharam Singh son of Shri Jagmal Singh, resident of village Dukheri, Tehsil and Distt. Ambala

 

                                                                             ……. Complainant.

                                                  Versus

 

1. India Pesticides Ltd. through its Authorized Signatory, Unit-1, Plot No.E-17 to 23 & G-31 to G-33, UPSIDC, Industrial Area, Deva Road, Chinhat, Lucknow (U.P).
2. M/s Samar Seeds Store through its Proprietor/Authorized Signatory, Dukheri Road, Village Mohra, Tehsil & Distt. Ambala.                                                                                        

                                                                        ..…..Opposite Parties.

         

Before:       Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

       Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                                                

Present:       Shri Rajiv Walia, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

Shri Raj Mahak Rana, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

         

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay Rs.3,00,000/- for damage of wheat crop of the complainant alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date of purchase of seeds till its realisation.
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the financial loss, mental agony & physical harassment suffered by him & to refund the amount of Rs.480/-i.e the cost of the pesticides to the complainant.
3. To Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

382.  

 

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

                   

 

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is a famous agriculturist, who used to cultivate his fields with hard-labour and used to get good yield. He purchased wheat seeds of best quality and planted in his fields. For the purpose of saving his crop from diseases (Gulli-Danda) and to get good yield, he visited the shop of OP No.2 & inquired about the suitable pesticides for the wheat crop. The proprietor of the OP No.2 advised him to purchase Clogold pesticide, manufactured by OP No.1 and told him that OP No.1 is a famous pesticides manufacturing firm and provide full guarantee of all types. On the advice of OP No.2, on 04.02.2018, he purchased two packets of Clogold (Batch No.DICL/17/10/03 vide bill no. 68, for a sum of Rs.480/- from the OP No.2. As per the advice of OP No.2, he sprayed the said pesticides on the wheat crop grown in his two acres of land. After the spray of the said pesticides, he found that his wheat crop got burnt. He reported about the same to the OP No.1 immediately, who assured that the officials of OP No.2 would inspect his fields and the requisite compensation for the damage of the wheat crop would be paid to him. He moved an application to the Deputy Director, Agricultural Department, Ambala for inspection of wheat crop. The officers of the Agriculture Department inspected his fields and submitted the report bearing No.TA/1110, dated 12.03.2018 that wheat crop was burnt due to defective pesticides used by the complainant. Due to supply of the defective pesticides by the OPs his wheat crop got burnt and he suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- (inclusive of all expenses) besides that he had also suffered a loss of Rs.480/- i.e the cost of the pesticides. He is agriculturist by profession and it is the only source of livelihood for him and his family members. He requested the OPs to compensate him for the huge financial loss suffered by him because of damage of his wheat crop due to spray of the defective pesticides supplied by them. The OPs admitted their fault and promised to compensate the complainant, but ultimately refused to compensate him.  He served a legal notice dated 16.03.2018 upon the OPs, but of no avail. By selling defective pesticides, the OPs have committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written version and raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability. On merits, it is stated that the complainant had purchased only 2 packets of Clogold pesticides from the OP No.2. The best quality of pesticides was sold to the complainant as per his requirement. The above said pesticides of the same batch were also sold to various other customers but none had complaint regarding the said pesticides. The complainant has unnecessary dragged the OPs into uncalled for litigation by filing the present frivolous complaint. The complainant had purchased the clogold pesticides as per his own wish & the OP No.2 never insisted him to purchase the same. The wheat crops of the complainant might have been spoiled/burnt due to some other reason. However, on the complaint of complainant, the OPs sent their expert to visit the fields of complainant and to report. After inspection the said expert reported that the wheat crop of complainant had not been burnt due to spray of pesticides, which the complainant had purchased from the OP No.2.  There was no complaint of any kind from other villagers, who purchased the said pesticides from the OP No.2. But the complainant just to grab money from the OPs has filed the present complaint. The OPs are not aware of any report given by the officials of Agricultural Department. The inspection report in possession of the complainant is forged and manipulated one. The loss calculated by the complainant is imaginary, as the average yield of wheat crop in one acre is approximately not more than 18 Qtls.  The loss suffered by the complainant is not due to any fault of the OPs, thus they are not liable to compensate the complainant in any manner. The OPs have not committed any deficiency in service, thus the complaint filed against it, deserves dismissal with costs.

3.                The learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-11 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Vinod Kumar Tomar S/o Late Vishambar Singh, Authorized Signatory of India Pesticides Ltd. Water Works Road, Aish Bagh Lucknow (U.P.) & affidavit of Amit Kumar son of Shri Kuldeep Singh, Prop. of M/s Samar Seeds Store, Dukheri Road, Village Mohra, Distt. Ambala as Annexures OP-A & OP-B respectively and documents as Annexure OP1 to OP8 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                The Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant had purchased two packets of clogold batch No.DICL/17/10/03 vide bill No.68 dated 04.02.2018 from the OP No.2 for a sum of Rs.480/-. He sprayed the said pesticides on the wheat crop grown in his two acres of land. The said pesticides were defective as a result whereof, his wheat crop got burnt. In the inspection report of Agricultural Department, it is clearly mentioned that wheat crop of the complainant got burnt due to defective pesticides. Due to spray of defective pesticides, which were manufactured by OP No.1 and sold by the OP No.2 for Rs.480/-, the wheat crop of the complainant got damaged and he suffered a loss of Rs.3,00,000/-. Therefore, direction may be issued to the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.480/- i.e the cost of the pesticide and also compensate him to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- for the loss suffered by him. They be also directed to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses.

                   The Ld. Counsel for the OPs argued that admittedly the complainant purchased two packets of clogold pesticide from the OP No.2 vide invoice dated  04.02.2018 for a sum of Rs.480/-. In the application dated 27.02.2018, filed by the complainant before the Deputy Director, Agriculture Ambala Annexure C-4, it is stated that the complainant had sprayed three packets of topic pesticide on the wheat crop grown in his two acres of land, due to which 70% of the wheat crop got damaged. From the said application it is quite clear that the wheat crop of the complainant got damaged due to spray of topic pesticides & not due to the clogold pesticides, which the complainant had purchased from the OP No.2. In the inspection report (Annexure C-5), it is nowhere mentioned that the wheat crop of the complainant got damaged due to spray of clogold pesticides. Even otherwise, the inspection report given by the officers of Agriculture Department placed on record by the complainant is not tenable in the eyes of law because they have not followed the instruction of the Government by not associating the OPs or their representative at the time of inspection of the fields.  Moreover, without getting the pesticides in question tested from the appropriate laboratory, it cannot be said that the pesticide in question was defective or of sub-standard quality. No cogent evidence has been placed on record by the complainant to prove that his wheat crop got damaged due to the spray of the clogold pesticides sold by the OPs. The complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merits and same may be dismissed with costs.

6.                Learned counsel for the complainant contended that the pesticide in question was of defective/inferior quality and after spraying the same, the wheat crop of the complainant got damaged, causing huge loss to him. He has relied upon the report of the Agriculture Authority (Annexure C-5). On perusal of the said report it is revealed that the officers of the Agriculture Department, who inspected the fields of the complainant, have reported that it appears that the wheat crop got burnt due to some chemical. The name of the chemical/pesticide, due to which the wheat crop got damaged has not mentioned.  It is not out of place to mention here that as per instructions issued by Agriculture Department, Haryana, Vide Memo No.52-70, dated 03.01.2002, the officers of the Agriculture Department were bound to associate one representative of concerned pesticides/medicine agency and one scientist of Krishi Vigyan Kendra in their team. The learned counsel for OPs has contended that the inspection of the wheat crop of the complainant was conducted in the absence of the OPs. This fact has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the complainant. In the case of Indian Famers Fertilizers Corporation Limited Vs. Ram Sawrup CLT 2014 63, NC, it has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission that report obtained without notice to the OP cannot be relied upon. In this view of the matter, we hold that the report of the Agriculture Department, relied upon by the complainant is not legally binding upon the OPs. Moreover, no test report of the pesticides in question has been produced on record. Furthermore, in the application dated 27.02.2018 filed by the complainant before the Deputy Director Agriculture Ambala, Annexure C-4, it is mentioned that due to spray of three packets of topic pesticide, the wheat crop of the complainant got damaged. Thus, the OPs cannot be held responsible for any loss suffered by the complainant as he had sprayed the pesticide, other than which he purchased from the OPs. In the case of Devender Kumar & Ors Vs. Amsons Lab Private Ltd. & Others CPJ 2014(IV), 575 the Hon’ble National Commission has held that the complainants have not placed on record any laboratory report to substantiate that crops were damaged 100% due to application of pesticide. Report of Agriculture Development Officers only reveals that there was 100% damage to the wheat crop. The officers have not carried out any test to ascertain whether 100% damage to the wheat crop was due to application of purchased pesticides. Defects not proved.

                   In view of the facts discussed above and the law laid down by the superior Fora’s in the cases referred to above, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove that the pesticides sold by the OPs were of defective/inferior quality. As such, we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint. Accordingly, we hereby dismiss the present complaint being devoid of merits with no order as to costs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the complainant, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :20.11.2019

 

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)            (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

 Member                                     Member                       President