BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 285 of 2016                                                                       

                                                      Date of Institution         :    24.10.2016

                                                          Date of Decision   :    26.9.2017.

Kamaljeet Singh son of Sh. Baldev Singh, resident of village Gobindpura, Tehsil Rania, Distt. Sirsa.

                      ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

1. M/s Chandi Seeds & Chemicals, Booth No.11 Anaj Mandi Rania, Distt. Sirsa through its Prop/ Partner/ Manager/ Auth. Person.

2. Coromandel Fertilizers & Chemicals Pvt. Limited, VPO Jatwar, Tehsil Naraingarh, Ambala, through its Managing Director/ Partner/ Auth. Person.

  ...…Opposite parties.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT

           SMT. RAJNI GOYAT ………………… MEMBER

                        SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE …… MEMBER.   

Present:       Sh. A.S. Kaura,  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. D.S. Bhangu, Advocate for opposite party no.1.

                   Sh. Yadvinder Singh, Advocate for opposite party No.2.

ORDER

                   The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant is an agriculturist. On 19.9.2016, the complainant alongwith Bakshish Singh son of Ujjagar Singh and Abhishek son of Som Parkash residents of Rania, Distt. Sirsa visited the shop of opposite party no.1 and asked him to give pesticide for his eight acres agricultural land. The complainant had purchased pesticide of 10PXIL Tebuco for an amount of Rs.13250/- vide bill No.45 dated 19.9.2016 after assurance of every type of op no.1. The complainant sprayed the said pesticide in his 8 acres of land as per directions of op no.1 but the crop of the complainant did not gain height as well as did not give any fruit as 60 to 70% crop of complainant burnt. Then complainant came to know that op had given him a duplicate pesticide. The complainant alongwith above said Bakshish Singh and Abhishek and other respectable persons of village immediately met with op no.1 and told him about his loss but op no.1 did not hear him and started to threat the complainant that he cannot do anything. That thereafter, complainant filed a complaint to the Agricultural Director, Sirsa for the inspection of his field but to no effect. That due to duplicate pesticide of the ops, the complainant has suffered 80% loss of his crop which comes to Rs.2,50,000/- and he had also spent an amount of Rs.30,000/- for sowing the crop. The complainant has also suffered mental pain and harassment etc. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. On merits, the opposite party no.1 admitted sale of the above said pesticide to the complainant and also about giving of all types of assurances to the complainant because the op no.2 had given these types of assurances to the op no.1. It is further submitted that after purchase of said pesticide, after some time the complainant visited to the answering op and told about his loss due to duplicate pesticide. Then answering op inspected the spot and found the loss to the crop occurred due to use of pesticide. The answering op immediately informed the op no.2 in this regard but op no.2 did not hear the answering op and flatly refused to admit the claim of complainant and answering op. The answering op also returned back all the remaining pesticides to the op no.2 on 21.9.2016. In this way, there is no fault on the part of answering op and op no.2 is liable for the same. The answering op himself has suffered a great loss of his reputation in the farmers and other persons as well as in the market due to the act of op no.2.

3.                Opposite party no.2 in its written statement resisted the complaint by taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; concealment of true and material facts and that present complaint has been filed by the complainant in connivance with the op no.1 in order to unnecessary harass the answering op and to receive the alleged amount of compensation from the answering op, for which the answering op is not liable. On merits, it is submitted that op no.1 was the dealer of answering op. All the pesticides of the answering op are approved from the Govt. and which are checked from the Govt. Lab. and there was no fault in the pesticide of the answering op.  The complainant did not follow the instructions for the said pesticides. As per instructions the said pesticides should be used to put in the earth prior sowing the crop but the same has been used later on the crop and these instructions should be disclosed by the op no.1, hence the answering op is not liable for any alleged loss. It is further submitted that there is a written agreement between the company and dealer vide which it is clearly mentioned that the company is only liable for the goods, its packing etc. but not liable for any loss etc. In case there is loss to the crop due to pesticide, then the farmer/ complainant should have checked the same from the Deputy Director, Agriculture Department but the complainant has not submitted any report of Agriculture Department and the alleged photographs also do not prove the identity of the said effected killa numbers, square numbers etc. It is further submitted that an amount of Rs.5½ lakhs of answering op is outstanding against op no.1 and in this regard cheque of said amount of op no.1 has been dishonored and the answering op has filed a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act against op no.1. The answering op has also cancelled his dealership and due to this grudge, the op no.1 in connivance with the farmers is filing such false complaints against answering op. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied.

4.                The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Sh. Abhishek Jain Ex.C1/B, copy of bill Ex.C2, photographs Ex.C3 to Ex.C5, postal receipts Ex.C6, Ex.C7. On the other hand, op no.2 produced affidavit of Dr. Satbir Singh, D.R.M. Ex.RW1/A, laboratory report Ex.R1 and copy of lab. report Ex.R2/A. OP no.1 produced affidavit Ex.RW1/B, copy of report Ex.R3, copy of bill Ex.R4, copy of retail invoice Ex.R5 and copy of complaint Ex.R6.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.   

6.                The perusal of evidence of the complainant reveal that complainant has placed on file his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the contents mentioned in his complaint and he has further relied upon the affidavit of Abhishek Jain Ex.C1/B who has tried to support the version of complainant. The perusal of complaint reveal that the complainant has not specifically mentioned the khasra numbers of eight acres of agricultural land which was allegedly owned by him. Even in his entire complaint as well as in evidence he has not mentioned that as to which crop was sown by him at that time which was allegedly damaged due to spray of pesticide in question, nor he has placed on record any copy of jamabandi as well as the copy of khasra girdawari in support of his claim that he had cultivated any specific crop in the land in question. The complainant has only placed on record three photographs Ex.C3 to Ex.C5, showing standing crop but from these photographs, it cannot be presumed that land belongs to the complainant or it is the same land where the complainant has used the pesticides which was purchased by the complainant from op no.1 vide alleged bill Ex.C2. Though, opposite party no.1 has also supported the case of the complainant and has relied upon affidavit of Sh. Rajender Singh SO of op no.2 and his report Ex.R3 but these documents are not helpful to the case of the complainant rather it appears that same is result of collusion between the complainant and op no.1 as no authority letter of op no.2 for inspection of the field of complainant by said Rajender Singh SO has been placed on file. Said Rajender Singh or op no.1 has also not placed on file any proof that he is posted as SO in the company of op no.2. 

7.                On the other hand, in order to defend the complaint of the complainant, the op no.2 through Dr. Satbir Singh, DRM has furnished affidavit Ex.RW1/A in which he has reiterated all the contents made in the written statement. OP no.2 has also placed on record copy of laboratory test report of pesticide in question as Ex.R2/A according to which sample of the same has been found permissible. The complainant has not placed on record any report of the expert qua the damage to the crop of the complainant, nor he ever made any application to this Forum for the appointment of any expert nor the complainant had ever moved any application to get the sample of the pesticides tested from approved laboratory. Though the complainant has alleged that he filed a complaint to the Agricultural Director, Sirsa for inspection of the field but they did not visit his fields, but however, the complainant has not placed on record any copy of complaint/ application moved to the agricultural department regarding on spot survey qua the standing crop of the complainant. So, it appears from the record that complainant has failed to prove his case by leading cogent and convincing evidence.

8.                In view of our above discussion, we are of the considered view that complaint is devoid of any merit and same is hereby dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.   

Announced in open Forum.    Member    Member             President,

Dated:26.9.2017.                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                Redressal Forum, Sirsa.