BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM FEROZEPUR.QUORUM
President : Member : S.
C.C. No.10 of 2011
Date of Institution: 3.1.2011
Date of Decision: 2.9.2011
1.
2.
...... Complainants
Versus
1. M/s Bajaj Pesticides, Distributor of
2. M/s
3. M/s
4. M/s
5. M/s
6. M/s
........ Opposite parties
C.C. No.10 of 2011 \\2//
Complaint Section 12 of
* * * * *
PRESENT :
For the complainants :
For opposite party No.1, 2 & 3 :
For opposite party No.4 & 6 :
For opposite party No.5 : E x-p
ORDER
SANJAY GARG, PRESIDENT:-
Complainants
C.C. No.10 of 2011 \\3//
coming out in the shape of monkey’s hand (Bandar -
(i) Rs.6,55,000/- as loss of the cotton crop;
(ii) Rs.25
(iii) Rs.1
(iv) Rs.50
(v) Rs.12
____________
Total=Rs.8 ____________
2. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties, who appeared and filed their respective written replies to the complaint. Opposite party No.1, who is dealer, in its written reply, has pleaded that he had sold a good quality insecticides. The same were sold in the same packs and sealed containers in which the same were received by him from the distributors and the manufacturing companies. Even the insecticides in question cannot be proved to be defective without analysis of the same in a
C.C. No.10 of 2011 \\4//
State recognized laboratory. It has been further pleaded that the insecticides are to be used as per the recommendations of the Agriculture Department or Punjab Agriculture University and if the same are not used in accordance with the prescribed manner, then they could not give the desired results. The complainants, being regular customers of opposite party No.1, had purchased the insecticides in question on credit basis. Now an amount of Rs.66
C.C. No.10 of 2011 \\5//
insecticides without taking proper precautions. Even in his report, the Agriculture Officer has not mentioned that the damage to the crop has occurred due to inferior quality of insecticides. Even the samples were taken by the Agriculture Department of the insecticides from the shop of opposite party No.1 and the same were got tested from the insecticides testing laboratory,
3. Opposite party No.2, in its written reply, has pleaded that India and its products are of best quality. The product India and so far no complaint has been received regarding quality of the said product. It has been further pleaded that the complainants have alleged that the first spray was made on 5.8.2010 and the second spray was made on 28.6.2010. If there were any bad effects of the spray, then the complainants should have approached the concerned officials after the first spray. The complainants have not mentioned as to in what ratio the insecticides were mixed and then sprayed. Even the samples of the products were taken by the Agriculture Officer and those have been declared fit by the insecticides laboratory. The complainants did not approach the Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana
C.C. No.10 of 2011 \\6//
samples of damaged crop and the samples of insecticides so that the cause of loss could be ascertained by the scientists. While assessing the loss, the Agriculture Officer has not adopted the scientific method regarding the assessment of loss. Even the damaged plants were not got tested from the laboratory to get the exact cause of damage. Even no photographs of the damaged crop have been produced on the file. The opposite parties were not joined at the time of inspection of the crop. All other averments of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
4. Opposite party No.3 in its written reply, has also made similar averments and any defect in the quality of insecticides manufactured by opposite party No.3 has been denied.
5. Opposite party No.4, in its written reply, has pleaded that brand name of its product is
6.
C.C. No.10 of 2011 \\7//
Hence was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 25.4.2011.
7.
8. The main allegations, as per the complaint, are that the complainants mixed so many insecticides on the asking of opposite party No.1 and sprayed the same on the crop firstly on 5.8.2010 and thereafter on 26.8.2010.
C.C. No.10 of 2011 \\8//
Development Officer, in his cross-examination, has further deposed that the insecticides Punjab styled as “Bayer India Limited Versus
9. Even the samples of different insecticides were taken by the officials of the Agriculture Department from the shop of opposite party No.1 and the same were analyzed in the insecticide laboratory and the said
C.C. No.10 of 2011 \\9//
samples were found fit in the quality. Though the learned counsel for the complainants has stressed that there is some discrepancy in the batch number etc., but still the fact is that various samples of the insecticides were taken and none of them was found bad. Even the opposite parties have placed on the record affidavits of various farmers, who have certified that they had got no complaint regarding the quality of the pesticides/ insecticides in question. So the resultant presumption is that it was the complainants, who have not taken proper precautions in spraying the insecticides on their crop. The complainants have failed to establish that the loss to the crop has occurred due to bad quality of insecticides. Accordingly, the present complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
9. Arguments in this complaint were heard on 19.8.2011 and the case was reserved for orders. Now the orders
Announced
2.9.2011
(Sanjay President
(
Member
|
| HONABLE MR. Mr Tarlok Singh, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. Sanjay Garg, PRESIDENT | , |
