This Complaint coming up before us for hearing on 22-02-11 in the presence of Sri M.Sravan Kumar, advocate for the complainant and of Sri B.R. Krishna, advocate for Opposite parties, upon perusing the material on record after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-
The complainant filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- towards loss of crop and RS.1,000/- towards mental agony.
2. In brief the averments of the complaint are hereunder:
The 2nd opposite party is a dealer of 1st opposite party. On 12-12-09 the complainant purchased tycoon instead of ostathian of Bayer company believing the words of 2nd opposite party. On 15-12-09 the complainant spread the pesticide over the chilli crop in an extent of 3.75 cents. But on the 4th day the crop changed to yellowish and entire crop in 2 acres was totally spoiled. The complainant took the land on lease @Rs.16,000/- per acre and normal yield per acre would be 30-35 quintals. The complainant sustained huge loss. The cost of 60 quintals of mirch is Rs.3,60,000/-. The complainant gave a complaint to the District Collector and Agriculture Officer, Atchampet who visited the field. Inspite of notices the opposite parties failed to settle the claim. Thus the opposite parties committed deficiency of service.
3. OP2 filed memo adopting the version of OP1 and in brief their contention is hereunder:
The 1st opposite party supplied tycoon of batch No.1 manufactured in August, 2009 with 2nd opposite party. Hostathion is the trade name of Bayer for their Triazophos 40% EC. The 1st opposite party gave a reply to the notice issued by the complainant. In the said reply it was mentioned that the agricultural officer, Atchampet has visited the dealer shop on 05-01-10, collected sample of Triazophos 40% EC for analysis at Government laboratory and active ingredients were found at 38.99% which is permissible under Insecticides rules. The 1st opposite party have not promised any bio-efficacy claim of the said insecticides triazophos 40% EC on chilly crop. The 1st opposite party did not recommend for usage on chilly crop. At the request of the complainant only the tycoon was given. The opposite parties did not commit any deficiency of service. The complaint therefore be dismissed.
4. Exs.A-1 to A-9 and Exs.B-1 to B-9 were marked on behalf of complainant and opposite parties respectively.
5. Now the points that arose for consideration are:
- Whether the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service?
- To what relief
6. Admitted facts in this case are these:
- The 2nd opposite party is the dealer of the 1st opposite party.
- The complainant purchased tycoon on 12-12-08 from the 1st opposite party (Ex.A-1).
- There was exchange of notices between the parties to the complaint (Exs.A-6 and A-8).
7. POINT No.1:- The contention of the opposite parties is that Triazophos 40% EC is not meant for chilly crop. To substantiate it they filed Ex.B-8 and B-9. As seen from Ex.B-8 the Triazophos 40% EC was meant for cotton, paddy and soyabean. Ex.B9 relating to Hostathion 40 EC was meant for cotton, paddy, soyabean and brinjal. Both Exs.B-8 and B-9 literatures deal with the product Triazophos 40% EC. Both of them were not meant for chilly crop. It is for the complainant to seek proper insecticide and apply for chilly crop. Quantity of yield depends upon nature of soil, moisture, application of proper pesticides/fertilizers and management of crop. It is the complainant who is at fault but not the opposite parties. Under those circumstances, the complainant is not entitled to any claim from the opposite parties as there was no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. In view of the afore mentioned discussions, this point is answered in favour of opposite party.
8. POINT No.2:- In view of the above findings, in the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to Junior Steno, transcribed by her, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 14th day of March, 2011.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Complainant:
Ex.Nos. | DATE | DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS |
A1 | 12-12-09 | Copy of cash bill issued in the name of complainant by 2nd opposite party. |
A2 | 04-01-10 | Copy of letter written by complainant to Agricultural Officer, Atchampet. |
A3 | 03-01-10 | Copy of paper notification in Surya daily. |
A4 | 03-01-10 | Copy of paper notification in Eenadu daily. |
A5 | 03-01-10 | Copy of paper notification in Sakshi daily. |
A6 | 18-01-10 | Copy of legal notice got issued to opposite parties. |
A7 | 20-01-10 | Postal acknowledgment by 1st opposite party. |
A8 | 22-01-10 | Postal acknowledgment by 2nd opposite party. |
A9 | 22-01-10 | Reply got issued by 1st opposite party. |
For opposite party :
Ex.Nos. | DATE | DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS |
B1 | 17-11-09 | Copy of invoice of Jayalakshmi Fertilisers to Sri Balaji Enterprises, Atchampet. |
B2 | 07-10-09 | Copy of invoice of M/s Bayer Crop Science Limited to Jayalakshmi Fertilisers, Venktrayapuram, Tanuku. |
B3 | 05-01-10 | Form XX details of samples taken from Sri Balaji Enterprises, Atchampet. |
B4 | 05-01-10 | Mediator report. |
B5 | 18-01-10 | Form XVII report insecticides analyst signed by Insecticides Analyst, PTL, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad. |
B6 | - | CIB registration certificate No.CIR-53404/2006 – Triazopho (EC 40%) 569 for Triazophos 40% EC. |
B7 | - | Copy of manufacturing license No.8/73-74 |
B8 | - | Leaflet of Triazophos 40% EC of Jayalakshmi fertilizers |
B9 | - | Leaflet of Hostathion 40% EC (Triazophos 40% EC) of M/s Bayer Crop Science Limited. |
PRESIDENT
