Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 204.

                                                          Instituted on     : 31.03.2017.

                                                          Decided on       : 08.04.2019.

Kuldeep, age 48 years, son of Sh. Yashbir, Resident of Village Kharkara, Tehsil Meham, District Rohtak. 

                                                                              ………..Complainant.

                                                Vs.

1.       Juneja Trading Company, Khad, Beej and Medicines Seller, Thana Road, Meham, District Rohtak, through its Proprietor.

2.       Syngenta India Limited, Amar Pardig M.S. No. 110/11/13, Baner Road, Pune-911045, Maharastra, through its Manager.

……….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:       Mrs. Sarita Ahlawat, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. H.C. Sikri, Advocate for opposite party No. 1.

                   Sh. Vijay Pal Gahlawat, Advocate for opposite party No. 2.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                          Brief facts of the case are that the complainant sown the crop of wheat in 21 acre of land by taking the land on lease comprised in shumar number 10234. Khata No. 1852, 1992 situated at village Behlba tehsil Meham, District Rohtak. That to protect the crop from the insects and other harmful creatures, the complainant purchased herbicides medicines on 22.12.2016 from the respondent No. 1 manufactured by respondent No. 2 against consideration of Rs. 10,000/- vide receipt/bill No. 729 dated 22.12.2016. That the complainant by following due instructions told by respondent No. 1 and as described on the pack of the said medicines sprayed the said herbicides over the crops of wheat but to the utter surprise of the complainant, the whole crops of the wheat was spoiled/damaged. Complainant intimated the same to the respondent No. 1 then respondent No. 1 advised to spray further herbicides and he again purchased the herbicides medicines on 24.01.2017 against consideration Rs.6280/- vide receipt/bill No. 756 dated 24.01.2017. Complainant sprayed the said herbicides over the whole crops but this time also the crops of wheat suffered damaged. The complainant again made complaint to the respondents and the respondents sent a team for verification and team members assured the complainant that the herbicide spray was defective but the respondents did nothing on this score and lastly refused to compensate the complainant. That the complainant also informed regarding the damages to the Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Rohtak. That the S.D.A.O, Rohtak constituted a committee consisting competent person duly visited at the spot and inspected the wheat crops and gave report vide which about 20 to 30% of the damage of wheat crops was caused due to the spray of herbicides. That the complainant suffered a huge loss of wheat crops Rs.5,00,000/- on account of the loss of yields of wheat crops in 21 acre. As such, it is prayed that the respondents may kindly be directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation alongwith the interest @ 24% per annum from the date of supply of herbicide medicines to the date of actual realization of whole of the amount and Rs. 11,000/- as compensation as explained in relief clause.

2.                          After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 in its reply submitted that it is wrong that the complainant sown the crop of wheat in 21 acre of land by taking the land on lease. It is further submitted that the factum of selling of the herbicides by the answering respondent is correct, however, it is stated that the said herbicides were sold to the complainant with seal intact i.e. in as it is condition, as were purchased from M/s Hari Om Sales Corporation, Pilli Kothi, Near Old Bus Stand, Rohtak, vide invoice dated 14.12.2016, 28.12.2016 & 06.01.2017, the answering respondent sold the aforesaid herbicides only as per demand of the complainant in as it is condition with seal intact. It is wrong that the crops of wheat suffered damaged as alleged. It is further wrong that the S.D.A.O., Rohtak constituted a committee consisting competent persons as alleged or that they duly visited at the spot or that inspected the wheat crops and gave report vide which about 20 to 30% of the damage of wheat crops due to the spray of herbicides purchased from the respondents as alleged. It is submitted that neither any notice was sent to the answering respondent from the office of Deputy Director, Agriculture, Rohtak nor the answering respondent was ever asked to join the officials of the Department of Agriculture, hence, the report if any from the office of Department of Agriculture is nullity, as the guidelines for inspection of the field of the farmer has not been complied and the unilateral act of the officials of Department of Agricultural is not at all binding upon the rights of the answering respondent. It is wrong that the complainant suffered a huge loss of wheat crops Rs. 5,00,000/-. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party No. 1 prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost.

3.                          Opposite party No. 2 in its reply has submitted that complainant has attached two invoices alongwith the complaint, first in the name of complainant and second in the name of Mr. Ramesh and not the complainant. That the products mentioned under the first invoice are not manufactured or sold or marketed by the opposite party No.2. Hence, there is no question of any complaint against the opposite party No.2. As regards second invoice, the same is not in the name of complainant and it seems that the invoice in no manner relates to complaint or product under consideration. Therefore, complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party No.2 and complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that the report submitted by the complainant revealed that the same is of ‘Sugarcane crops’ whereas the present complaint is regarding ‘wheat crops’. Therefore, the report submitted by the complainant is totally irrelevant. Moreover, the complainant has failed to produce any scientific or credible evidence to substantiate the allegation against the opposite party No.2. Hence the complainant is not entitled to receive compensation from this answering opposite party. It is also submitted that the contents regarding the purchasing of herbicide by the complainant from the opposite party No. 1 which is manufactured by the opposite party No. 2 is totally false and frivolous and hence strongly denied. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party No. 2 prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost qua the opposite party No. 2.

4.                          Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavits Ex.C1/A, Ex.C1/B, Ex.C1/C and Ex.C1/D, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and has closed his evidence on dated 08.03.2019. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 & Ex.R7 and closed his evidence on dated 10.01.2019. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A and closed his evidence on dated 11.10.2018.

5.                          After perusal of the documents placed on record by both the parties we have observed that the complainant has purchased herbicides from the opposite party no.1 on dated 24.01.2017 for a consideration of Rs.6280/- which is placed on record as Ex.C1. Another bill dated 26.12.2016 is placed on record as Ex.C5 amounting to Rs.10000/-. As per respondent No.2, the second bill placed on record by the complainant was in the name of Mr. Ramesh but perusal of Ex.C5 itself shows that this bill was also issued by the respondent no.1 in the name of complainant. Hence the objection taken by the opposite party is turned down. The second plea taken by the respondent is that the report submitted by the complainant is of ‘Sugarcane crops’ whereas the present complaint is regarding ‘wheat crops’. But perusal of report Ex.C4 itself shows that the same is regarding wheat crop. Hence this objection is also turned down. Last plea taken by the respondent No.2 is that the contents regarding the purchasing of herbicide by the complainant from the opposite party No. 1 which is manufactured by the opposite party No. 2 is totally false and frivolous and hence strongly denied. In this regard, we have observed that as per invoice placed on record by the respondent No.2, itself shows that they sold the product to one Hari om Sales Corporation, Pili Kothi, Near Old Bus Stand Rohtak and respondent no.1 i.e. Juneja Trading company in its written statement has admitted this fact that he had purchased the herbicides from one Hari Om Sales Corporation, meaning thereby that the product is manufactured by opposite party No.2. Hence the alleged plea taken by the respondent No.2 is also turned down.   

6.                          As per copy of inspection report Ex.C4, complainant Kuldeep has suffered loss of 15-20% to his crops of wheat in his field due to spray of alleged herbicide purchased from the opposite parties. On the other hand, contention of ld. counsel for the opposite parties is that no proper procedure/guidelines were followed by the complainant and OPs were never asked to join the officials of the department of agriculture. In this regard we have placed reliance upon the law III(2014)CPJ196(Hr.) titled as Shakti Vardhak Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajpal & Ors. whereby Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, Panchkula has held that: “Purchase of seeds-Defects-Loss of crops-Deficiency in service-compensation claimed-District Forum allowed complaint-Hence appeal-Contention, reports submitted by Deputy Director was not as per guidelines issued by Director of agriculture-Not accepted-Constitution of inspection team as per letter of Director of Agriculture and not associating dealer of seeds was not the fault of farmers at all for which they should not be allowed to suffer” and we also find support to our contention from case titled Kanta Kantha Rao Vs.Y.Surya Narayana (NCDRC), New Delhi cited in 2017(2)CPJ 549.

7.                          After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that due to spray of alleged herbicide in his land, purchased by the complainant from the opposite party no.1 and manufactured by opposite party no.2, the wheat crop of complainant was destroyed upto the extent of 15% to 20% and this fact is established by the report Ex.C4 given by the officials of Agriculture Department i.e. Agriculture Development Officers and Block Agriculture Officer.

8.                          As per the complainant, he had suffered loss in 21 acres of land which was taken by him on lease from Jai Singh, Dhan Singh and Randhir Singh. To prove his contention, complainant has placed on record affidavits Ex.C1/B to Ex.C1/D. As per affidavit filed by Jai Singh, he is owner of 55 kanal 7 marle land and as per affidavit Ex.C1/C filed by Dhan Singh, he is owner of 55 kanal 7 marle land which is given on lease to the complainant. But as per affidavit Ex.C1/D, Randhir has mentioned that he is the co-owner of land comprising in khewat no. shumar 10234, khata no.1852, 1992 situated at village Behlba tehsil Meham, Distt. Rohtak but he has failed to disclose the exact share of his agricultural land. Moreover, all the mutations have not been placed on record by the complainant. So we are unable to establish that how much land has been given to the complainant by Randhir Singh s/o Sh. Diwana on lease for the year 2016-17. Hence the land of Randhir cannot be considered.  Hence from the alleged affidavits Ex.C1/B & Ex.C1/C, it is proved that complainant has suffered loss in 14 acres of land. 

9.                          In view of the same, it is observed that complainant has suffered loss of wheat crop in 14 acres of land. In one acre of land, there is average production of 20 quintal per acre and the complainant has suffered 20% loss i.e. 4 quintal per acre and cost of  wheat per acre is Rs.1750/- meaning thereby complainant has suffered loss of Rs.7000/-(1750 x 4) per acre. As the complainant has suffered loss in 14 acres hence the total loss comes to Rs.98000/-(Rs.7000/- x 14).   As such, complaint is allowed and the opposite party No.2 being manufacturer is directed to pay a sum of Rs.98000/-(Rupees ninety eight thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 31.03.2017 till its realization and also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.

10.                       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:

08.04.2019.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Ved Pal Hooda, Member.

                                                                        ……………………………….

                                                                        Renu Chaudhary, Member.