Haryana

StateCommission

A/735/2015

MARKETTED AUTHORITY - Complainant(s)

Versus

JEET SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

ASHISH SAREEN

17 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.735 of 2015

Date of Institution: 24.08.2015/07.09.2015

                                                           Date of Decision: 17.05.2016

 

M/s Marketted Authority of Manufacturing, EID Point (P) Ltd 7^th Floor, Tower-C, DLF Cyber Green Sector 25 A DLF City Phase III, Gurgaon 1220022 Haryana.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

1.      Jeet Singh S/o Sh.RamDhari R/ovillage and post office Anwali,Tehsil Gohana, Distt.Sonepat.

2.      Gurpreet Singh, prop of M/s Hari Dass Beej Bhandar (KHAD) Pilli Kothi, Old Bus Stand, Hisar Road, Rohtak, Tehsil & Distt. Rohtak.

                                      …..Respondents

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:              Shri  Ashish Sareen, Advocate counsel for appellant.

Mr. Surender Gandhi, Advocate counsel for the   respondent No.1.

                              None for the respondent No.2.

 

                                                   O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI MEMBER:

 

1. M/s Marketted Authority of Manufacturing, EID Point (P) Ltd.–OP is in appeal against the Order dated 17.07.2015 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Rohtak, whereby the complaint of Jeet Singh - Complainant has been allowed and OP has been directed to pay Rs.83,070/- along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization, and Rs.2500/- as litigation expenses.

 

2. Briefly stated, the complainant had purchased the medicines namely ALMIX for removal of Makra Kharpatwar for a sum of Rs.1230/- vide bill No.188 dated 30.07.2011.  The medicine was consigned in six bottles and was used by the complainant in his 6 acres of agricultural land. The complainant used that medicine according to the directions and instructions given by OP-1 in his land. It is averred that despite using the said medicine by the complainant in his 6 acres of land the Makra Kharpatwar grew day by day as usual. Thereafter the complainant visited the shop of OP No.1 and told him that the medicine in question was totally useless and crop of the complainant was wholly damaged  as the OP-1 had supplied the said medicine of very inferior quality. When OP did not do anything to redress the grievance of the complainant, he served a legal notice upon the OPs but of no use. Thereupon, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP and claiming Rs.1230/- as price of medicine and Rs.400000/- as loss of crops.
3. According to the OP-1, he was the only dealer and had purchased the alleged medicine from Shyamlal Suresh Kumar vide Bill No.29105 which was sold in retail. There is no Fard Jamabandi placed on record to prove that the alleged medicine was used in 6 acres of land hence, the loss had been wrongly assessed. It is denied that the complainant had suffered a loss as demanded by him.

 

4. OP-2 has denied that OP-1 was his authorized dealer, therefore, the authenticity of the medicine purchased by the complainant could not be confirmed. It is further denied that Almix, the medicine in question, can be used for the removal of Makra Kharpatwar. Other averments of the complaint were also denied and it was pleaded that there was no deficiency in service on their part. The learned District Forum however rejected the pleas raised by the OPs and accepted the complaint vide order dated 17.07.2015.

 

5. Against this Order, the OP (M/s Marketted Authority of Manufacturing, EID Point (P) Ltd.) has filed Appeal before us contending that the learned District Forum has accepted the complaint without any legal justification. The appellant reiterating his submissions as made by him before the District Forum contends that they are not liable to pay the claim at all and that there was no deficiency in service on their part.

 

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. The clear case of the appellant - OP-2 which is the manufacturing company of the medicine in question is that it was the duty of the farmer to use the medicine in the method which was mentioned in the pamphlet supplied alongwith the medicine. The complainant / respondent has not alleged in his complaint that the medicine was used as per specifications or directions issued by OP-2. As per pamphlet Ex.RW1/B this pesticide was not to be used for Makra Kharpatwar the types of weeds for which it is to be used are mentioned therein. When this fact is not established negligence cannot be fastened on the part of the OP No.2. Further, OP No.2 has specially alleged that OP No.1 was neither its agent nor its distributor. Complainant has failed to show that OP No.1 was distributor of the medicine on his behalf. He might be supplying spurious medicine but for that purpose OP No.2 can not be held liable. Further, as per report Ex. C-4  complainant used weedicide namely aliks / adora. Almiks is manufactured by OP No.2 but who is the manufacturer of adhora is nowhere mentioned. Moreover, it is nowhere mentioned in this report that due to which weedicide the crop was damaged. So it can not be presumed that weedicide supplied by OP No.2 was not proper.
7. In view of the aforesaid factual position, it can not be held that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence, the appeal filed by the OP is allowed and the complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

8.    The statutory amount of Rs.25000/- deposited at the time of filing of the present appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and due verification.

 

May 17th, 2016  Urvashi Agnihotri                   R.K.Bishnoi,                                    Member                                      Judicial Member                             Addl. Bench                           Addl.Bench                 

S.K.