DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.123/17.07.2007 Decided on : 06.10.2008 Nahar Singh S/o Sh.Budh Singh, resident of Village Phaphre Bhai Ke, Tehsil and District Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.K.K.Goyal & Company through its Partner/Proprietor, near old farshi kanda, Budhlada, District Mansa. 2.M/s Krishan Dev Raj Kumar, Ahmedpur wale, Opposite gate, Budhlada. 3.Shivalik Agro Chemicals, E-8, Phase VII, Industrial Area, Mohali (Punjab). 4.Gujarat Insecticide Limited, c/o Babaji Agencies (P) Ltd, 10th mile stone, Goniana Road, village Bhokhra, Bathinda. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.S.K. Singla, counsel for the complainant. Sh.V.K.Goel, counsel for OP No.1. Sh.Mukesh Goel, Counsel for OP No.2. Sh.Parmod Jindal, Counsel for OP No.3. Sh.S.P.Gupta, Counsel for OP No.4. Before: Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER: Nahar Singh (hereinafter called as the complainant) has filed the present complaint against K.K.Goyal & Company,Budhlada, as well as M/s Krishan Dev Raj Kumar, Budhlada, Shivalik Agro Chemicals, Mohali and Gujarat Insecticide Limited,village Bhokhra, Bathinda. (hereinafter called as the opposite parties No.1,2,3 & 4, respectively) for Contd........2 : 2 : seeking compensation @ Rs.17297/- per acre on account of loss of crop from the opposite parties , along with Rs.20,000/- as compensation regarding mental harassment, as well as Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs. Admitted facts of this complaint are that the complainant is an agriculturist and from the last 40 years has been sowing his fields independently and is thus having full knowledge of agriculture. The complainant had sown wheat crop in his fields. To protect the crop and for getting better yield, he had purchased two varieties of pesticides /weedicides from OP vide bill No.5923 dated 30.12.2006 for Rs.3080/- for the purpose of its spray upon his wheat crop sown in his land for elimination of insects. The complainant took proper care of his crop as a result the wheat plants started sprouting. The complainant, according to the guidelines of the Ops, sprayed the sealed and packed contents of the pesticide/weedicides upon his wheat crop. It is alleged that after the spray, the wheat crop started turning pale. The complainant thereafter had moved an application to the Chief Agriculture Officer, Mansa upon which the officers of the Agriculture Department visited the spot and submitted the report dated 9.7.07 in which it was mentioned that due to the inferior quality of pesticide/weedicide sold by the Ops, a loss to the extent of Rs.17297/- per hectare was suffered by the complainant. It is alleged that on account of the defective and inferior quality of the pesticides supplied by OPs the wheat crop of the complainant had been destroyed completely causing huge monetary loss. Thus the complainant had suffered mental harassment also in addition to the monetary loss. Hence this complaint. OP No.1 in its written version did not dispute the sale of the pesticides to the complainant, but denied that there was any deficiency in service by this opposite party towards the complainant. According to this opposite party, the complainant has not suffered any loss, as alleged. Rather, according to this opposite party, the complainant had been sold the Contd........3 : 3 : pesticides in the same condition as it was purchased by the replying OP from the company. The complainant never complained about any defect in the pesticides. The OP was never accompanied while making any sort of spot verification by the agriculture department. The complainant had even not disclosed the ratio proportion of the user of the pesticides. The above variety of weedicide (Nihal and Sacrip) had also been sold to different farmers but neither of them had ever turned up with any complaint about the genuineness of the pesticides. No laboratory test has been conducted for knowing its brand status. Both the brands of pesticides are required to be used separately and are meant for separate purposes and not to be mixed. The above two pesticides are manufactured by two different companies namely GIL and Shivalik Agro. The complainant has also not disclosed whether he has used the above two varieties of pesticides separately or otherwise. The user of mixing of the above two varieties is violation of rules and instructions/guidelines of the University. There are different other factors also responsible for the better yield of crops which the complainant had failed to disclose whether he had adopted or not. The complainant had purchased the pesticides on credit and when this opposite party demanded the money from him, he refused to pay the same and rather filed this fake complaint. . Thus, the complaint is stated to be false and frivolous. Further, according to this opposite party, the pesticides purchased by him was in sealed packets /containers and he sells the same in the sealed condition. Therefore, he was not in any way liable to the complainant. A prayer for dismissal of the complaint was accordingly made. OP No.2 in its reply has contended that the complainant had never purchased any pesticide from it and as such they have been impleaded falsely. The bill No.5923 dated 30.12.2006 vide which OP No.1 had sold the pesticides to the complainant relates to batch No.4606 and its manufacturing date is 12/6 and date of expiry is 12/8 and as such this OP Contd........4 : 4 : has got not relation with the pesticide purchased by the complainant. The complaint has been filed by the complainant in connivance with OP No.1, just to harass the replying OP No.2 and as such both are liable to compensate the replying OP. This OP had supplied very good quality of pesticides in sealed packets to OP No.1. This OP has got no relation with the type of pesticide sold by OP No.1 to the complainant. Therefore, he was not in any way liable to the complainant. A prayer for dismissal of the complaint was accordingly made. In reply by OP No.3 it is contended that it is manufacturing pesticides under the brand name of SACRIP which is being used for destroying bathu used to grow in the fields of wheat. NIHAL pesticide is used to destroy gulli-danda. The complainant had sprinkled both the pesticides namely NIHAL and SACRIP together which is against the directions and specifications of the company. If any loss is occurred, it was only due to the fault of complainant himself and no other person can be held guilty for the wrongs committed by the other. No opinion of any expert or laboratory to ascertain the quality of the pesticides has been obtained. There is no complaint of the batch under which the alleged complaint has been filed. Moreover the climate, situation, condition, sort of earth, water etc are necessary to consider prior to determine the reason of loss if any. The replying OP is valid license holder. The brand is ISO standard and it ensures the quality product. There is no complaint of any other farmer who had used the pesticides rather the results are extremely well regarding yield. It was denied that the complainant had purchased any such pesticides and it is specifically directed not to use the pesticide with any other pesticide to avoid chemical reaction. The complainant had instead used two pesticides jointly and collectively against the specifications of the OP No.3, which might have destroyed the plants. Not also this, climate also affects the produce and mode of use of pesticide is also considerable and it is strictly warned to use the pesticides under the Contd........5 : 5 : specifications and directions of the company. A prayer for dismissal of the complaint was accordingly made. In its reply, OP No.4 has contended that OP No.1 has sold Nihal made pesticide vide bill dated 30.12.2006 to the complainant which also included one more pesticide manufactured by Shivalik company. The complainant had not disclosed the time of spray of both the pesticides including its quantity. Apart from the above, the complainant had also not used the pesticide according to the specifications and directions of the company. The complainant did not got conduct the sample testing of the pesticides under the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the CPA, 1986.. The above pesticide was sold by OP No.1 to the farmers of village Daska, Phaphre, Fulluana, Bhathla, Ahmedpur, Bachhoana and Ralli including the village of complainant and neither of the farmers had ever complained about the quality of the pesticide. The complainant had sold his produce (wheat crop) to M/s Sidhu Trading Company, Aaharti Centre, Phaphre Bhaike on 20.4.2007 for Rs.1,33,450/-. 'J' form bearing No.918 dated 20.4.07 in this respect has been issued by the above company which also finds the thumb impression of the complainant. The complainant has falsely alleged that whole of his wheat crop has been damaged and rather he has retained some wheat crop for his personal use also. The complainant has thus filed a false and frivolous complaint by concealing the material facts. On merits it was contended that the complainant had not disclosed as to on account of which pesticide his crop has been damaged. The letter issued by the Agriculture department is also alleged to be false. All other allegations were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made by this OP also. Both the parties have led their respective evidence in the shape of affidavits and documents. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinized the entire evidence placed Contd.......6 : 6 : on record. From the written version filed by OP No.1, it is abundantly clear that the sale of the pesticides by this opposite party to the complainant vide bill, copy of which is exhibit C-1, has not been disputed. The contention of OP No.1 is that the pesticide was purchased on credit by the complainant and when he demanded the money, false complaint was lodged against him which is meaningless. The grievance of the complainant is to be considered on merits on the basis of the facts placed on record by him. The allegation of the complainant that his wheat crop has turned pale after spray finds corroboration from his affidavit, copy of which is Exhibit C-3. On an application moved by the complainant to the Chief Agriculture Officer, Mansa, his report dated 09.07.2007, copy of which is Exhibit C-2 given by Chief Agriculture Officer, Mansa to the complainant is also on the file. The controversy which now requires to be resolved is as to whether the pesticide purchased by the complainant from OP No.1 does not conform to the standards laid down for such pesticide and the damage to the wheat crop has occurred solely on account of spray of the said pesticide. No doubt, the Chief Agriculture Officer in his report dated 9.7.2007, copy of which is Exhibit C-2, had observed that on visual inspection of the wheat crop by the Block Agriculture Officer, Bhikhi , he was of the view that the crop had turned pale and could have a bad effect on the yield due to spray. The report also finds mention that the yield of wheat crop of complainant was 2300 kilograms per hectare as compared to 4336 kilograms per hectare of this area. Thus the yield is less by 2035 kilograms per hectare. The government rate of wheat crop is fixed at Rs.750/- per quintal + Rs.100 as bonus. The total loss calculated as per this report was Rs.17297/- per hectare to the complainant . But the report is silent if the Block Agriculture Officer was having any knowledge of the chemical formation of the pesticides to the effect of such spray. He had not got any laboratory test of the wheat crop conducted to find out if the Contd........7 : 7 : damage to the crop had occurred only on account of the spray and not due to other factors. In Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. Versus Kopolu Sambasiva Rao & Others, 2006(1) CPC 36 (NC) , the Hon'ble National Commission had observed that where no sample was analysed according to the procedure prescribed under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act, the order holding the insecticide of inferior quality could not be sustained. In M/s Amarjit Singh and Company Versus Shiv Charan, 2005(2) CPC 620 (Haryana) damage to the flowers of Arhar was claimed on account of insecticide as no leaves and flowers of the crop were left except the stents in the fields. The District Forum had directed the opposite party to pay Rs.60,000/- as compensation without examination and laboratory test of the insecticide, as desired by Section 13(1)(c) of the Act. It was observed by the Hon'ble State Commission that to reach at a conclusion that the goods were defective, without proper analysis or test of the goods, District Forum committed an error by accepting the complaint holding the opposite party liable for deficiency in service. The order under appeal was accordingly set-aside. The counsel for the Ops has vehemently argued that pesticides under the brand name of SACRIP is being used for destroying bathu and NIHAL pesticide is used to destroy gulli-danda. The complainant had sprinkled both the pesticides namely NIHAL and SACRIP together which is against the directions and specifications of the company. The functions of both the pesticides are different. No sample had ever been failed of this batch of pesticide. It is the complainant's own case that both the pesticides were mixed together while spraying. The user of mixing of the above two varieties is thus violation of rules and instructions/guidelines of the University. Therefore, in view of the complainant's own version it can be safely held that if any loss is occurred to his crops, it was only due to the fault of complainant himself and no other person can be held guilty for Contd........8 : 8 : these wrongs. OP No.4 has also placed reliance upon exhibit OP4/A, 'J' Form bearing No. 918 dated 20.4.07 vide which the complainant had sold his produce (wheat crop) to M/s Sidhu Trading Company, Aaharti Centre, Phaphre Bhaike on 20.4.2007 for Rs.1,33,450/-. The form also finds the thumb impression of the complainant. The complainant has thus falsely alleged that whole of his wheat crop has been damaged. Rather apart from selling his produce to the extent of Rs.1,33,450/-, the complainant has retained some wheat crop for his personal use also. The complainant failed to rebut this point also. In view of the authoritative pronouncements and facts of circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that in the present case in the absence of any laboratory test or chemical analysis of the wheat crop of the complainant, it will not be just to hold that the pesticide supplied by OP No.1 to the complainant did not conform to the specifications laid down in that regard. There may be a number of other reasons also for damage to the crop and the complainant was required to lead evidence to eliminate the possibility of those reasons also. No evidence has been led by the complainant in that regard. As such, any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant thus cannot be established. As a consequence of the foregoing reasons, we are constrained to dismiss the complaint with the observation that the complainant may avail any other remedy available to him through the civil court in accordance with law. Parties shall bear their own costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charges under the rules and file be arranged, indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 06.10.2008 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, Member. Member.
