DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.16/30.01.2008 Decided on : 07.11.2008 Gurbachan Singh S/o Sh.Harditt Singh, Village Reond Kalan, Tehsil Budhlada and District Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.M/s Bhushan Kumar & Company, Main Bazar, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa through its proprietor/partner. 2.M/s Biostadt India Limited, Office 602-A, Poonam Chamber, Post AB Road, Worli, Mumbai. 400 018. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.B.D.Jindal, counsel for the complainant. Sh.Desh Bandhu Sharma, counsel for the OP No.1. OP No.2 exparte. Before: Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER: Gurbachan Singh (hereinafter called as the complainant) has filed the present complaint against M/s Bhushan Kumar & Company, Main Bazar, Tehsil Budhlada, as well as M/s Biostadt India Limited,Worli, Mumbai (hereinafter called as the opposite parties No.1 & 2, respectively) for seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.70,000/- on account of loss of his brinjal crop , Rs.20,000/- as compensation regarding mental harassment and Rs.490/- as refund of the insecticide (total Rs.90940/-). Brief facts of this complaint are that the complainant had grown brinjal crop in his one acre of land. On account of the attack of Contd........2 : 2 : pests(worm) on his brinjal crop, he had purchased an insecticide (KRUSH 25% EC) for Rs.490/- from OP No.1, vide Bill No.951 dated 17.07.2007 for the purpose of its spray on his brinjal crop for controlling the attack of pests. According to him, when he sprayed the said insecticide on his brinjal crop in accordance with the instructions of the OP, all the plants got burnt and the crop was damaged to the extent of 100%. He immediately informed the OP about the damage to his crop, but the OP did not pay any heed towards his genuine request. The complainant had even moved an application to the Agriculture Officer, Mansa who inspected the crop and gave his report. The yield of the brinjal crop during the months of June, July, August and September, 2007 according to the Market Committee, Budhlada was 350/-, 500/-, 750/- and 500/- per month respectively. The complainant further alleges that he even served a legal notice dated 1.1.08 upon the OP for making good the loss suffered by hi, but the OP did not bother to reply the notice. He suffered loss in his crop to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- @ 200 quintals per acre. The complainant also claims to have suffered mental harassment. Hence this complaint. The complaint was originally filed against OP No.1, but on the application of OP No.1, OP No.2 , being the manufacturer of the spray purchased by the complainant, was impleaded as opposite party No.2. OP No.1 in its written version did not dispute the sale of the alleged spray i.e. KRUSH 25% EC manufactured by OP No.2 vide bill dated 17.07.2007 to the complainant. The OP had only given the insecticide as asked for by the complainant. At the time of purchase of the insecticide by the complainant, he did not disclose as to on which crop he want to spray the said insecticide. The opposite party has no control over the use of insecticide in a proper manner by the purchaser. However, according to this opposite party, the insecticide sold by it was purchased by him in sealed packing and had further sold the same to the complainant in the sealed form. On the complaint of the complainant, the A.D.O., Contd........3 : 3 : Budhlada had collected the sample of the above insecticide and according to the Report of the Insecticide Analyst, the sample conformed to I.S. Specifications in respect of its percent active ingredient contents vide their report Ext.OP-7. The complainant had even reported the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Mansa and his complaint met dismissal there also. Therefore, this opposite party was not in any way deficient in service towards the complainant. All other allegations were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was accordingly made. OP No.2 did not appear despite service and as such it was proceeded against exparte on 29.4.2008. 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 on record. From the written version filed by the OP No.1, it is evident that the sale of the insecticide namely KRUSH 25% EC of batch No.970029 by OP No.1 to the complainant vide bill dated 17.7.2007 in the sum of Rs.490/- is not in dispute. There is also no dispute about the fact that a farmer who is well versed in agriculture can be treated as an expert in his profession, yet he being not expert in the handling of insecticides spray, it has to be established that the insecticide had been used by him strictly in accordance with the instructions , if any, accompanying the insecticide purchased by him. The perusal of Exhibit C-8, report of the Agriculture Development Officer, Budhlada reveals, as per the saying of other farmers, that the brinjal crop of the complainant was stated to be got damaged due to the spray of the insecticide purchased by him from OP No.1 It was advised to the complainant to cut the plants from the top and not to irrigate the plants further to help it sprout again which might result in increasing Contd........4 : 4 : the product. The complainant even reported the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Mansa (Ext.C-6), who further authorized the Chief Agriculture Officer to enquire the matter regarding damage to the crop of the complainant. The Chief Agriculture Office, Mansa in its letter dated 23.11.2007 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Mansa (Ext.OP4) intimated that after thorough inquiry it is opined that the insecticide in question had been purchased by OP No.1 through proper bill from the distributors and sold to the complainant with a proper bill and thus had not violated any provisions. With regard to the damage of brinjal crop of the complainant, it was reported by the Assistant Director (Horticulture) that at the time of spot inspection of the fields of the complainant by him on 19.9.2007, he could see only the sprouted crop and the complainant had cut the chief crop one and a half month back. He has stated that in the absence of any chief crop in the fields he cannot say about the damage caused to the crop on account of spraying of insecticide by the complainant. Otherwise also the complainant was not present at the time of spot inspection of his fields. The Assistant Director (Horticulture) has thus opined in his report that only as per the saying of the complainant it can be said that he had suffered damage to the extent of Rs.60,000/- per acre in his fields. It was further opined that the sample of the insecticide was also sent for its analysis which conformed to its IS specifications. No action was required to be taken against OP No.1 in accordance with the Insecticide Act, 1968 according to the Deputy Commissioner, Mansa in this respect. The opposite party has further placed on record Exhibit OP-7, copy of the report of the Insecticide Analyst dated 25.09.2007 relating to Quinolphos 25% EC bearing Batch No.970029 and the conclusion was that, Sample conforms to I.S. Specifications in respect of its percent active ingredient contents. Exhibit OP No.6 is the detailed chart of the finished goods. It was opined at the column of remarks as Material is Contd........5 : 5 : passed. It is not the case of the complainant that the insecticide sold to him by OP No.1 was not of the same batch of which the analysis test was conducted and the report is Ext.OP-7 placed and proved on record by the OP. No evidence to the contrary has been led by the complainant. Therefore, the detailed enquiry report of the Chief Agriculture Officer, Mansa,as well as Deputy Commissioner, Mansa and the Analytical Test of this insecticide cannot be ignored. The settled law is that damage to the crop may be caused by various other factors like inferior quality of seed, weather conditions, irrigation, crop disease etc. Therefore, it is not necessary that the damage to the crops was only because of spray of insecticide on it. It is thus held that less yield of the brinjal crop, if any, could not be straightway attributed to the use of the insecticide purchased by the complainant from OP No.1. Otherwise also, the insecticide in question was sent for proper analysis under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act and as the provisions of this Section had been duly complied, complaint deserves dismissal on this ground also. In support of his allegations, the complainant has placed reliance upon a case law H.N.Shankara Shastry v/s The Assistant Director of Agriculture, Karnataka, 2004(3)RCR (Civil) Recent Civil Reports 176 vide which the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that once the Forum is satisfied that the goods supplied to the consumer were defective and the consumer suffered loss on that account, grant of relief to consumer does not depend upon whether he should have made alternative arrangement to avoid the loss or not and as such the order of the District Forum awarding compensation for loss of crop was restored. The law does not help the present complainant in any way because, in the case in hand, the Forum is not satisfied that the goods supplied to the consumer were defective rather the insecticide sold to the complainant by OP No.1 was duly subjected to analysis and the report of the Insecticide Analyst, copy of which is Ext.OP-7, conformed to I.S Contd........6 : 6 : Specifications in respect of its percent active ingredient contents. In the light of the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has not been able to establish deficiency in service towards him by the opposite party in any way. As such, the complaint is dismissed leaving the parties to 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: 7.11.2008 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, Member. Member.
