Haryana

Karnal

206/2012

Jaswant Singh S/o Shyam Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manav Fertilizers - Opp.Party(s)

Vedpal

03 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.     

                                                                Complaint No.206 of 2012

                                                                Date of instt.: 20.4.2012

                                                                Date of decision: 03.02.2016

 

Jaswant Singh son of Shri Shyam Lal resident of village Peont tehsil Nissing district Karnal.

                                                                  ……..Complainant.

 

                             Versus

1.M/s Manav Fertilizers,  Assandh Road, Jundla Fertilizers and Pesticides Dealer through its owner.

 

2.M/s Bayer Crop Sciences, Registered office at Bayer House, Central Avenue, Hiranandani, Goinat, Vovai, Mumbai – 400076 through its Managing Director.

 

 

                                                                           ……… Opposite Parties.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.             

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

Present:-      Sh.Ved Pal Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Lalit Chopra Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

ORDER:                      

.  

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986(hereinafter referred to as the Act), on the averments that he  had sown wheat crop in his land measuring 16.5 acres at village Peont District Karnal. He purchased 11litres of Accord Plus herbicide from the Opposite Party no.1 manufactured  by Opposite Party no.2, vide bill No.2523 dated 14.12.2011, for an amount of Rs.12100/-. He sprayed the said herbicide on his crop as per instructions and guidelines mentioned on the packet and as recommended by Opposite Party no.1 and company and  paid huge amount to the labourers for spraying the same. Lateron, he found that there was burning of his wheat crop  in patches. He immediately contacted the Opposite Party no.1 for inspection of his fields, but the Opposite Party no.1 did not bother. Then, he moved application to the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal, for getting inspected his fields. On that, a technical committee constituted by the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal inspected his fields and found that there was burning of the wheat crop in patches and assessed that there may be loss of approximately 15/20% in wheat yield. In fact, the loss was more than 80%  and he suffered the loss to the tune of Rs.40,000/- per acre. He moved application to the Opposite Party no.2 for making payment of compensation, but the Opposite Party no.2 also did not pay any heed to his requests. The Opposite Parties had supplied interior and substandard quality of herbicide to him, due to which he suffered great mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.  

 

2.       Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite Parties.  The Opposite Party no.1 filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint against Opposite Party No.1 because the Opposite Party no.1 is only a retail dealer of pesticides and herbicides manufactured by Opposite Party no.2 and that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the  present complaint. 

 

                    On merits, it has been denied that inferior or substandard quality of herbicide was supplied to the complainant. It has also been denied that product sold by the Opposite Party no.1 had burnt  the crop of the complainant as alleged. It has been submitted that  production of yield depends on many other factors  like quality of soil, weather, irrigation and rain etc. The committee constituted did not join any official of the Opposite Parties while inspecting the fields. The complainant even in  his application dated 25.2.2012  to Opposite Party no.2 did not mention about the inspection of his  field by the technical committee constituted by the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal. Even as per the report of the technical committee  burning of wheat crop in patches was due to low lying area and not on account of use of inferior or sub standard quality of herbicide.   The complainant even did not comply with the provisions of Section 13(l)(c) of the Act, though the  Opposite Party no.1 had kept intact the  sample of the product. The other allegations made in the complaint have been specifically denied. 

 

3.                The Opposite Party no.2 filed separate written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Similar objections have been raised as raised by the Opposite Party      no.1 in the written statement.

 

                   On merits, it has been  submitted that the technical committee which inspected the fields of the complainant gave report that burning of wheat crop in patches was in low lying area, which clearly shows that fields of the complainant were uneven and due to excess water the crop was damaged. The technical committee even did not join any official of the Opposite Parties while inspecting the fields of the complainant. In fact, the herbicide was supplied after duly getting analytic certificate from the competent authority and the product had undergone  very strict quality checks at every stage and was released for  batches only after the same met  extremely internal quality parameters. The herbicide sold to the complainant was neither inferior nor of sub standard quality. The other allegations made in the complaint have not been admitted. 

 

4.                In evidence of the complainant his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 have been tendered.

 

5.                On the other hand, in evidence of the Oppoiste Parties, affidavit of Ashwani Kapoor Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R2 toEx.R7 have been tendered.

 

6.                We have appraised the evidence on record,  the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.

 

7.                As per the case of the complainant, he purchased  eleven packets of  Accord Plus herbicide  from Opposite Party no.1 on 14.12.2011  and sprayed the same in 16.5 acres of his wheat crop, but due to spray of the said herbicide, his wheat crop was burnt and he suffered loss of yield upto 80%.  He also got inspected his fields from technical committee constituted by the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal and as per report of the said committee Ex.C5, wheat crop of the complainant had burnt in patches in low lying areas and due to that he could suffer loss approximately 15 to 20% in wheat yield in all the 16.5 acres of wheat crop.

 

8.                It is worth pointing out at the very outset that the complainant in para no.2 of the complaint alleged that he is having land measuring 16.5 acres in village Peont. However, no revenue record regarding ownership or possession of the said land by the complainant has been produced. The copy of the Jamabandi for the year 2007-2008 Ex.C2 has been produced by the complainant wherein the name of the complainant neither figures in the column of ownership nor in the column of possession. The land  bearing khatoni no.154 is owned and possessed by Maya Singh and others, whereas the land bearing khatoni no.79 is  owned by Ram Singh. It is not the case of the complainant that he had taken 16.5 acres of land on lease from the aforesaid owners. Moreover, there is no documentary evidence to show that the said land was taken on lease by him from its owners. Thus, the complainant has failed to establish that he was having the land measuring 16.5 acres at village Peont. Even if, for the sake of arguments, it is accepted that he had taken the land on lease from the owners and had sown  wheat crop in the land measuring 16.5 acres, then also the question arises whether the quality of herbicide purchased by him from Opposite Party no.1,  which was manufactured by Opposite Party no.2 was of inferior  or  of substandard quality and on account of that his wheat crop was burnt at some places.

 

9.                The report of technical committee constituted by the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal Ex.C5 falsifies the case of the complainant. According to the said report it was observed that there was burning of wheat crop in patches in low lying areas and due to that there might be loss of approximately 15-20%. Had the herbicide been of inferior or of substandard quality, then the burning of crop would have  taken place in all the fields and not only in patches in low lying area. The report indicates that fields of the complainant were uneven due to which the  water could stagnate in the low lying areas, which could also result in damage to the crop in those low lying area and not on account of inferior or of substandard quality of herbicide. The technical committee did not observe that burning of the crop in patches at low lying area could be due to spray of inferior or of sub standard quality of herbicide. Thus, the complainant  has failed to prove that his wheat crop was damaged in low lying areas due to supply of inferior or of sub standard quality of herbicide by the Opposite Parties.

 

10.               As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and as such the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated: 3.02.2016

                                                               (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

(Anil Sharma )      

   Member.

 

 

 

 

 

Present:-        Sh.Ved Pal Advocate for the complainant.

                     Sh.Lalit Chopra Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

                   Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced  
dated: 3.02.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

(Anil Sharma )      

   Member.