BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 168 of 2012
Date of Institution : 27.8.2012
Date of Decision : 29.7.2016
Kamal Kumar s/o Sh.Surender Kumar, aged about 42 years, r/o village Chautala, tehsil Dabwali Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- M/s Mahavir Parshad & sons, Dealer of Seed, Fertilizers and Pesticides, Chautala, Distt. Sirsa through its partner/prop. Shri Mahavir Parshad.
- United Phosphorous Ltd., registered office: 3-11, GIUDC, Vapi Gujarat 396 195 through its Director (Marketed by Pesticides-Loggam).
- BASF India Ltd. Factory, Plot no.203/1, GIDC Estate Panoli-394 116, District Bharuch Gujarat through its Managing Director, (Manufacturer of Pesticides-Loggam).
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH.S.B.LOHIA …………………………..PRESIDENT
SH.RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……….MEMBER.
Present: Sh.R.D.Bishnoi. Advocate for complainant.
Sh.S.K.Garg , Advocate for Opposite party no.1.
Ops no.2 and 3 exparte.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief is that the complainant is an
agriculturist having land in village Chautala tehsil Dabwali Distt. Sirsa. As alleged, he sown gawar crop in rect.no.222 killa no.20,22 and 23 on his land. There was excess kharpatwar in killa no.23, for this he purchased Loggam pesticide for removing the kharpatwar from op no.1 on 21.7.2012 on payment of Rs.400/- against bill no.370 dt. 21.7.2012. It is further pleaded that complainant hired one Swarn Kumar and expert sprayer for spraying the said pesticide in killa no.23. Said Swarn Kumar sprayed the pesticide on 21.7.2012, but due to said spray the gawar crop of the complainant was badly damaged. Upon this, complainant approached to op no.1, who misbehaved with him. Thereafter, complainant approached to Deputy Director, Agriculture Sirsa to assess the loss, who visited the spot and reported vide memo no.377 dt.14.8.2012 assessing the 40% loss to the crop. Complainant again approached to op no.1 for compensation, but it flatly refused. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, Opposite party no.1 appeared and contested the case, whereas Ops no.2 and 3 were proceeded against exparte. Op no.1 pleaded that no assurance regarding the quality of pesticide was given to the complainant, rather complainant demanded the pesticides with his own will. It is further pleaded that op no.1 sold out the pesticides in the packed condition as the same was received from the company. Remaining averments have been denied.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex.C1; bill Ex.C2; copy of report Ex.C3; whereas the respondents have tendered affidavit of proprietor of op no.1 Ex.R1.
4. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. The main dispute in this complaint is that adulterated, inferior quality and sub standard pesticide was sold by the respondent no. 1. Due to this adulterated pesticide 40% crop of the complainant has been damaged. The complainant moved an application to the Deputy Director Agriculture, Sirsa for spot inspection. After inspection of the field by Sub-Divisional Agriculture Officer, Dabwali and Agricultural Development Officer, Goriwala, report Ex.C3 was given. As per report, there was approximately 40% loss.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has argued that there is no affidavit of said Swarn Kumar, who allegedly sprayed the pesticide. He further argued that in the report Ex.C3 given by Agriculture Department, there is no mentioning of khasra number and killa numbers, in which the complainant has allegedly sprayed the pesticide. Moreover, the alleged inspection has not been made in the presence of Ops and without giving any notice to the Ops.
7. On careful examination of the documents and affidavits of the parties
and hearing of the arguments of learned counsels for the parties, it is clear that the complainant failed to prove that the pesticide was of inferior quality and mis-branded. The case of the complainant depends upon report Ex.C3 of the officers of the Agriculture Department. We carefully gone through the report of the officers of Agriculture department. No sample of pesticide was sent to the Lab. for analysis. It would also not be out of place to mention here that the officials of the agriculture department have also not mention the khasra and killa numbers of the land which was allegedly inspected by the officials of the agriculture department. From report Ex.C3 the identity of the land can not be established and such report does not carry any evidentiary value. Holding these views we have relied upon the observation of our Hon’ble Haryana State Commission in a case Narender Kumar Vs. M/s Arora Trading Company and other 2007(2) CLT 683 in which it was clearly observed by their Lordship that when the killa and khasra numbers of land which was inspected by the Agriculture Department officer had not been mentioned in the report, the report cannot be taken into account to support the stand of the complainant. As such no finding can be recorded in favour of the complainant simply on the basis of a self serving affidavit when there is no evidence with respect to the less gawar crop and it can be said that the complainant had really suffered any loss due to defective seed.
8. As per letter of Director Agriculture Department dated 3.1.2002, issued to all the Deputy Director in the State in which it is directed by the Director Agriculture, inspection team consisting with total four members, two officer of Agriculture Department, one representative from concerned seed agency and one scientist from Krishi Vigyan Kendra. In this report, it is mentioned that this report was prepared by two officials, Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Dabwali and Agriculture Development Officer, Goriwala and bearing their signatures This report is not conclusive and the same is defective one. Even, no notice was issued to Ops for spot verification.
9. So complainant is failed to prove his case from all angles and report of inspection team is not acceptable in the eyes of law
10. Accordingly the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:29.7.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Member. Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
