DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.35/14.03.2008 Decided on : 23.01.2009 Gurdev Singh S/o Sh.Hakam Singh, resident of Village Beero ke khurd, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.M/s Kissan Pesticides House, Bus Stand Road, Budhlada through its proprietor/partner, Budhlada, District Mansa. 2.M/s Charanjit Singh Gaganjot Singh, Anaj Mandi, Budhlada, District Mansa. (Distributor), Nagarjuna Group. 3.M/s Borawalia Trading Company, Budhlada, District Mansa. through its proprietor /partner, Gol Chakar (Retailer and wholesaler) 4.M/s Goyal & Company, Budhlada, District Mansa through its proprietor/ partner, Near Old Farshi Kanda, Biro ke wala Road, Budhlada. . ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.G.S.Dhingar, Advocate counsel for the complainant. OP No.1 exparte. Sh.V.K.Goyal, Advocate counsel for OPs No.2 to 4. Before: Sh.Pritam Singh Dhanoa, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.Pritam Singh Dhanoa, President. This complaint has been filed by Sh.Gurdev Singh son of Sh.Hakam Singh, resident of Village Beero ke khurd, Tehsil Budhlada, Contd........2 : 2 : District Mansa, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), on the averments, which may briefly be described as under: 2. The complainant has purchased pesticide vide bill No.1227 dated 8.1.2005 for sprinkling the same in his land situated in the revenue limit of village Beero ke khurd, as per details mentioned hereunder:- Name of Pesticides Batch No. Quantity Rate Total amount Punit 15% WP 34 1X3 760/- Rs.2,280/- Safaiya 8% WP 24020 1X3 180/- Rs. 270/- Sungrip 20% WP 001 1X1 120/- Rs. 120/- Total amount = Rs.2,670/- 3. He used the above said pesticides for growing wheat crop in 5 ½ acres of his agriculture land to prevent the growth of Gulli-danda i.e. a weed. Instead of protecting the growth of said weed, the pesticide purchased by the complainant, caused damage, to his wheat crop and he suffered huge financial loss, on account of which, he filed application dated 25.2.2005, to the Assistant Agriculture Officer, Budhlada, to assess the loss, who conducted spot inspection of his crop and assessed the loss in the sum of Rs.90,000/-, vide its letter No.736 dated 14.2.2007. At the end a prayer has been made, by the complainant, for award of compensation, in the sum of Rs.70,000/-, on account of, loss to his wheat crop; Rs.20,000/-, on account of compensation, for physical and mental harassment and another sum of Rs.2,000/-, as costs incurred by him, for filing the instant complaint. 4. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, but OP No.1 has been proceeded against exparte. Remaining Opposite parties No.2 to 4 filed joint written version resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that complaint, is not maintainable, because complaint earlier filed on 26.5.2005, has been dismissed ,vide order dated Contd........3 : 3 : 28.11.2006, by this Forum on merits; that the present complaint, being on the same subject matter, is not maintainable and his Forum, has no jurisdiction, to adjudicate upon the same ; that the contesting opposite parties, are not manufacturers, of the said pesticide, purchased by the complainant and the Punjab Agriculture University, has never recommended, for use of all the insecticides together by a farmer on the wheat crop; that complainant, has not disclosed the ratio of pesticide, used per acre and he has neither got the sample of pesticide tested from any laboratory, nor any sample, has failed; that complainant is not a consumer, under the contesting opposite parties, and that complaint, being false and frivolous, is liable, to be dismissed. On merits, it is denied, for want of knowledge, as to which pesticide has been purchased by the complainant from the OP No.1 and date of bill issued by him in that connection. It is denied that the complainant, had ever informed the opposite parties regarding the ineffectiveness of the pesticide purchased by him from OP No.1. Rest of the averments, made in the complaint, have been denied, and a prayer, has been made, for dismissal, of the same with costs. 5. On being called upon, by this Forum, to do so, learned counsel for the complainant, tendered his affidavit Ext.C-3 and photo copies of documents, Ext.C-1 and C-2 and closed his evidence. On the other hand learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties, has tendered in evidence, affidavit of Sh.Kewal Krishan, Ext.OP-1 and copies of documents Ext.OP-2 to OP-8 and closed their evidence. 6. We have heard the learned counsel, for the parties and gone through, the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by them, carefully, with their kind assistance. 7. At the out set, learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties Sh.V.K.Goyal, Advocate, has drawn our attention, to certified copy of complaint No.89 decided on 28.11.2006, filed by the complainant against the opposite parties. Learned counsel, has argued that as the Contd........4 : 4 : previous complaint, has been dismissed on merits, as such, present complaint is not maintainable, as the verdict given by this Forum ,has become final and binding upon the parties. Learned counsel, has argued that, the instant complaint, has been filed, on the same cause of action and parties and subject matter are also same, as such, it is abuse of process of court and the complaint is liable to be dismissed, on the ground of maintainability, with compensatory costs. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant Sh.G.S.Dhingar, Advocate, has submitted that after dismissal of the previous complaint, Chief Agriculture Officer, Mansa, has given his report on the basis of application filed by the complainant on 25.2.2005, as such, instant complaint may be on the same of cause of action, between the same parties, but complainant cannot be non-suited on the ground of maintainability. 9. Argument advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant, has failed to sound well with us. The perusal of certified copy of order dated 28.11.2006, Ext.OP-5, goes to show that complaint filed earlier bearing No.89 dated 26.5.2005, on the same cause of action against the same opposite parties, was dismissed by this Forum, after affording opportunity to the parties to lead their evidence. There is nothing on record that complainant, has availed further remedy open to him, in the shape of appeal, before the competent authority, within the period prescribed under the Act. As such, verdict delivered by this Forum, vide order dated 28.11.2006, has become final and binding, upon the parties. In the instant complaint, complainant, has placed reliance upon the report dated 14.2.2007Ext.C-2, of the Chief Agriculture Officer, Mansa , on the basis of application filed by him on 25.2.2005, Ext.C-4. The controversy cannot be reagitated by the complainant merely because there was delay in the submission of report by the the Chief Agriculture Officer, Mansa. The complainant should have sought production of report, after Contd........5 : 5 : inspection of his crop was conducted by the above said officer, with the intervention of this Forum, at appropriate stage, but he did not initiate any such step, for the reasons best known to him. Since the controversy between the parties finally stands adjudicated, and order passed by this Forum, in the previous complaint, is final and binding upon the parties, therefore, we are of the opinion that this complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed, on this technical ground alone. 10. In the light of our above discussion, we consider it prudent not to dwell upon merits of the case and evidence adduced on record by the parties. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the complaint and leave the parties to bear their own costs. 12. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 23.01.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
