Haryana

StateCommission

A/1094/2015

UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAI KARAN - Opp.Party(s)

SURABH GARG

16 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  : 1094 of 2015

Date of Institution: 21.12.2015

Date of Decision : 16.11.2016

 

 

United Phosphorus Limited, Corporate Office: Uniphos House, Madhu Park, 11^th Road, Chitrakar Dhurandar Marg, Khar (West), Mumbai 400052.

Registered Manufacturing Unit: 3-11, G.I.D.C. Vapi-396195-Gujrat through Sh. Pala Ram s/o Sh. Sh. Puran Ram, its Area Manager.

                                     

                                                          Appellant –Opposite Party No.3

 Versus

 

1.      Jai Karan s/o Sh. Raghbir resident of village Kathura, Tehsil Gohana District Sonepat.

                                      Respondents –Complainant

2.      Chaubisi Khad Beej Bhandar, Gohana Road, Nandal Mor, Lakhan Majra District Rohtak through its Prop.

3.      Tata Chemicals Limited, 5^th Floor Somdatt Towers, Sector-18, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP through its Manager CRM.

 

 

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Sh. Saurabh Garg, Advocate for the appellants

Sh. Upender Prasher, Advocate for the respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

United Phosphorus Limited-opposite party No.3 is in appeal against order dated 15.09.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (in short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint was allowed and appellant-opposite party No. 3 was directed to pay Rs.40,080/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its actual payment besides Rs.2500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.      Jai Karan-complainant filed complaint submitting that he had sown wheat crop in his agriculture land.  There was growth of kharpatwar/grassy weeds and broad leaved weeds grown in the wheat crop.  Complainant purchased six packets of weedicide TKS Sulmet at the rate of Rs.390/- per packet totaling Rs.2,340/- vide Bill Exhibit-C-5 from Chaubisi Khad Beej Bhandar-opposite party No.1.  The weedicide was manufactured by appellant.  After spraying of 2 packets of weedicide the crop started destroying.  Complainant returned 4 packets.  The complainant filed complaint before Agriculture Authority and a team consisting of Agriculture Development Officer, Khatura, A.D.O., A.D.O. (PP) Khatura and SMS(PP), Gohana was appointed by Director, Agriculture to inspect fields.  The team inspected the fields of complainant and submitted its report (Exhibit C-1).  Complainant claimed the compensation of Rs.1,96,380/- for the loss of his crop, but the opposite parties refused. Complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.      The opposite parties contested the complaint.  Opposite Party No.1 admitted that complainant had purchased 6 packets of weedicide. The weedicide was effective for destroying kharpatwar and denied it to be adulterated or substandard.

4.      Opposite Party No.2-Tata Chemicals in their written version submitted that the weedicide was manufactured by United Phosphorus Limited-opposite party No.3. It was denied that weedicide was defective or misbranded.  It was stated that the weedicide was sold in the market after its due testing in the laboratory. 

5.      Opposite Party No.3 was proceeded against exparte on the basis of presumed service.

6.      District Forum after hearing the parties allowed the complaint and issued directions to the appellants as detailed in paragraph No. 1 of this order.

7.      We heard Learned Counsel and perused the file.

8.      Complainant having sowed wheat crop is proved from report of Patwari Exhibit C-2 and Jamabandi Exhibit C-3.

9.      The question is whether the loss was on account of defective weedicide?

10.    The Inspection Report of team constituted by the Director, Agriculture is on file as Exhibit C-1.  The Committee in its observation No. 5 of the report has specifically mentioned that at the time of inspection on 3^rd, January, 2013 the “control of weeds found effective”.  Though it further mentioned that there was burning of wheat crop. However, there is no evidence on record to show that the burning of crop was on account of defective or adulterated weedicide.  There is nothing in the report that the burning of crop was due to spray of this weedicide or as a result of adulterated weedicide. 

11.    Undisputedly, the complainant purchased weedicide for destroying kharpatwar (bids) and as per report of the Committee it was found effective for control of bids. Merely because the crop was burnt, no presumption can be raised that it was on account of use of weedicide or its adulteration.  There may be many reasons including that it was not properly sprayed and the mixture was not properly diluted as per specifications. Thus the order passed by the District Forum cannot be allowed to sustain.  Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

12. The statutory amount of Rs. 25000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 16.11.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President