BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 158 of 2014
Date of Institution : 14.11.2014
Date of Decision : 21.12.2016
Nachattar Singh son of Shri Teja Singh son of Shri Santa Singh, resident of village Sukhchain, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- M/s Birla Pesticides, Shop No.131, New Anaj Mandi Kalanwali, District Sirsa, through its Prop/ Authorized person.
- Seven Sold Crop Science Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office Rangpur Sadhery, Tehsil R.S. Pura, Jammu (J&K), through its Authorized person.
- Crystal Crop Protection Pvt. Ltd. GI-17, G.T. Karnal Road, Industrial Area, Azadpur, Delhi-110033, through its Authorized person.
...…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. L.S. Srari, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. J.B.L. Garg, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief is that he is a small farmer and having small piece of land and takes 10 acres of land on lease basis from Kirpal Singh son of Sh. Karnail Singh for cultivation purpose at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per acre. The complainant sowed Narma crop in the land measuring 6 acres and guar crop in 4 acres and spent about Rs.25,000/- per acre for maintaining his crop. On 24.9.2014, he approached op no.1 and purchased pesticides 3½ liter pesticides namely Renold for Rs.2950/-, 1½ rapid for Rs.1650/- and thus he purchased the pesticides for total sum of Rs.4600/- vide bill No.724 dated 27.9.2014. Thereafter, he sprayed the pesticides on his narma and guar crop in ten acres as per the directions/guidelines given by op no.1. After few days, he was astonished to see that all flowers/ leafs/ cotton boll and the guar crop was destroyed due to impact of spray of pesticides and the crop of the complainant suffered from disease of leaf curl. The cotton leaf and guar crop was burnt and crop started falling down and thus the whole crop of complainant was ruined. On detecting this, complainant immediately approached the Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Sirsa and moved an application on 6.10.2014 for inspection of his field and after the inspection they reported that due to use of pesticides as per direction of op no.1, high tonicity occurred in the cotton and guar crop on account of which the complainant has suffered loss of crop. As such, the complainant is liable to be compensated. The complainant has suffered total loss of Rs.6,39,600/-. The ops were contacted time and again by complainant and were requested to make good the loss but they paid no heed to the lawful/ genuine claim of complainant and two days back they flatly refused to admit his claim. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Ops No.1 and 3 in their joint reply have submitted that complainant has not mentioned the square and killa numbers of the land wherein he sowed the crop and allegedly used the pesticides. The complainant has not furnished the report of any expert/lab. test report about the quality of pesticides. The complainant of his own and as per his wish and wisdom purchased the pesticides. The rapid pesticide is meant for use on cotton crop only. The op no.1 sold and supplied the pesticide to the complainant in the same sealed and packed condition in which the same was received by it from its manufacturer/ distributor. The answering ops have no knowledge about the inspection of the field of the complainant by the officers of Agriculture Department and their report. No notice or intimation was ever given to the answering ops by the complainant or by the officers of the agriculture department about the inspection of field of complainant. The crop of complainant may have been damaged due to some other reasons or by way of misuse of pesticides by him. Remaining contents of complaint have also been denied.
3. Opposite party no.2 in its separate reply also resisted the complaint on almost similar lines as pleaded by ops No.1 & 3.
4. The complainant has produced his affidavit Ex.C1, affidavit of Bhupinder Singh Ex.C2, copy of cash memo Ex.C3, copy of bill dated 27.9.2014 Ex.C4, copies of pamphlets Ex.C5 and Ex.C6, copy of application dated 6.10.2014 Ex.C7, copy of letter dated 29.10.2014 Ex.C8 alongwith inspection report, copy of lease deed Ex.C9, copy of jamabandi for the year 2011-2012 Ex.C10 and photographs Ex.C11 and Ex.C12. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit of op no.1 Ex.R1, affidavit of Sanjay Singh, Area Sales Manager of op no.2 Ex.R2, copy of letter dated 3.1.2002 Ex.R3, copy of pamphlet Ex.R4 and directions for use of pesticides Ex.R5 and Ex.R6.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The complainant has failed to prove that the pesticides were of inferior quality and mis-branded. The complainant has placed on file inspection report alongwith letter of Deputy Agriculture Director, Sirsa Ex.C8. We carefully gone through the report of the officers of Agriculture department. No sample of pesticides was sent to the Lab. for analysis. It would also not be out of place to mention here that the officers of the agriculture department have also not mentioned the khasra and killa numbers of the land which was allegedly inspected by the officers of the agriculture department. From the said report, 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. Moreover, the complainant has alleged total loss to his crop whereas in the above said report, it is mentioned that there was loss of 18 to 20% to the crop of Narma in six acres of land and 18 to 20% loss to the guar crop in four acres of land. Further the said report is not conclusive report as it is mentioned in the report that it seems that loss to the above said two crops is on account of spray of mixed pesticides and therefore, opposite parties cannot be held liable for the same.
7. Further, as per letter of Director Agriculture Department, Haryana, Panchkula dated 3.1.2002 (Ex.R3), issued to all the Deputy Directors of Agriculture in the State it was directed by the Director Agriculture that inspection team should be consisting total four members, two officer of Agriculture Department, one representative from concerned agency and scientists from Krishi Vigyan Kendra. In the inspection report, it is not mentioned that any notice was given to the representative of the concerned agency, so this report is not a valid one and the same is defective one.
8. Thus, complainant has failed to prove his case and report of inspection team is not acceptable in the eyes of law. The authorities cited by learned counsel for complainant in cases titled as Bayer Crop Science Ltd. Vs. Surjit Singh and anr. III (2012) CPJ 58 (NC), C.T. Sebastian & Saju Vs. T. Stanes and company Ltd. & Ors. IV (2013) CPJ 407 (NC), Jai Kishan Trading Co. Vs. Godrej Agrovet Ltd. & Ors. II (2013) CPJ 208 (NC) and authority of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula in case titled as Ved Parkash Gopal Dass Vs. Devi Lal, II (2011) CPJ 173 are not applicable in the present case. 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:21.12.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Member. Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
