BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.
Complaint No.:54 of 2016.
Date of Instt.: 09.02.0216.
Date of Decision: 27.03.2017
Kanshi Ram son of Chet Ram resident of village Bharpur Tehsil Ratia District Fatehabad.
Complainant.
Versus
- M/s. Farmer Trading Company, 138 Anaj Mandi, Ratia Tehsil Ratia District Fatehabad through its proprietor/partners.
- M/s Frontier Agrotech Private Limited (Super Distributor of E.I. Du Pont India Pvt. Limited) General & Allied Industries Compound, G.T.Road, Bye Pass, Karnal 132001 (Haryana) through its Managing Director/Authorized & Competent person.
Respondents
Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
BEFORE: Sh. Raghbir Singh, President.
Smt.Ansuya Bishnoi, Member
Argued by: Sh.K.K.Jangra, counsel for the complainant.
Sh.U.K.Gera, counsel for the OP No.1.
Sh.Kewal Krishna Singla, counsel for the OP No.2.
ORDER:
The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties with the averments that he had purchased 2 packet of pesticide Galilo from OP vide invoice No.3387 dated 01.10.2015 for a sum of Rs.10,800/-, though the estimate was issued in the name of son of the complainant. At the time of selling the above said pesticide the Op No.1 had claimed that it is of very fine quality and will remove the disease “GARDAN TOD”.
2. It has been further alleged that the complainant sprayed the said pesticide as per instructions and directions of the Ops in his land and in the land taken by him on contract basis from his brother. However, after some days the complainant noticed that the pesticide so purchased by him did not give any positive result because the disease “GARDAN TOD” occurred even after spraying of the pesticide. The complainant requested the OP No.1 to visit the field and to pay compensation but to no avail. As such the complainant made an application to Agriculture Department, Fatehabad to visit his fields and to assess the loss. The officials of Agriculture Department visited the fields of complainant and found that the size of the plants was 3’ to 3’.6’ and there was “BALIANS” over the same and the disease “GARDAN TOD” was also there on all the plants and that is why the crop could not develop completely and the farmer would suffer loss to the tune of 75 % to 80 %. It has been further averred that the complainant had been able to get only 2 quintals of paddy crops from one acre against the average crop of 30 quintals, therefore, the complainant has not only suffered loss to the tune of Rs.2,87,500/- but also suffered mental agony and harassment. Hence, the complainant. In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit as Annexure C1 and documents Annexure C2 to Annexure C7.
3. The Ops appeared and filed their separate replies opposing the complaint of the complainant on various grounds.
The Op No.1 has taken preliminary objections such as cause of action, maintainability, non-compliance of Section 13 of CP Act, suppression of material facts etc. It has been further submitted that the complainant had never used or sprayed insecticide Galileo in his fields and the OP No.1 has no control over the use of insecticide after selling of the same. It has been further submitted that the Op No.1 had sold the same to complainant in sealed and packed condition after receiving the same from distributor and the Op No.1 has never given any assurance to the complainant. It has been further submitted that the report of Agriculture Department does not show that loss was occurred due to spraying of insecticide. The reasons for not getting the desirable crop cannot be attributed to the insecticide as other factors also play important role in the same and the “GARDAN TOD” disease remains in every agriculture field of “MUCHHAL DHAAN”. The complainant might have not sprayed the recommended doses and the insecticide Galileo is not of inferior quality, therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of OP No.1. Lastly, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
The Op No.2 in its reply has taken preliminary objections qua maintainability, cause of action and non–compliance of Section 13 (1) (c) of CP Act etc. It has been further submitted that the present complaint has been filed just to harass the OPs with ill-motive and ill-design. The complainant had not purchased anything but one Sandeep Kumar had purchased the same and the estimate document cannot be referred to as bill/invoice. Present complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary party as the complainant has not joined the manufacturer of the insecticide. It has been further submitted that the insecticide in question is best insecticide to remove ‘Neck blast’ disease when it is being used under proper guidelines. Op No.2 has taken more or less the same grounds as taken by Op No.1. By denying other pleas made in the complaint, Op No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. In evidence, the OPs have tendered affidavit of Sh.Raj Kiran as Annexure R-1, affidavit of Sh.Narender as Annexure R-3, besides documents Annexure R2, Annexure R4 to Annexure R6.
4. We have carefully examined the pleadings and documents of the parties. The complainant has mainly relied upon the report of Agriculture Department (Annexure C5) wherein it has been mentioned that the inspecting team had found the size of the plants as 3’ to 3’.6’ and there was “BALIANS” over the same and the disease ‘GARDAN TOD” was also there on all the plants and that is why the crop could not develop completely and the farmer would suffer loss to the tune of 75 % to 80 %. Perusal of this very report reveals that the complainant had sprayed the insecticide in his fields on 13.09.2015 & 24.09.2015, meaning thereby that the complainant had purchased the insecticide from OP No.1 earlier to the date of spraying but Annexure C4 (copy of invoice issued by OP No.1) reveals that the complainant had purchased the insecticide Galileo on dated 01.10.2015, therefore, it contradicts the stand taken by the complainant. Though the complainant has tried to fill this lacuna by placing estimate dated 13.09.2015 issued by Op No.1 (Annexure C3) but this estimate does not show that the complainant had purchased the said insecticide on 13.09.2015. The complainant has not even produced said Sandeep Kumar, in whose name the estimate was issued, before this Forum as a witness to support his stand. The committee of Agriculture Department in its report dated 12.10.2015 has opined that the complainant has suffered a loss to the extent of 75 % to 80 % in the quantity and quality of the yield. It has also been opined that the loss to the crops has occurred on account of GARDAN TOD disease. However, the committee in its report nowhere has opined that the disease in the crops or loss in the yield has occurred on account of any fault/defect in the pesticide sold by OPs. There is no other report of the laboratory or any expert to prove that the pesticide sold by the OPs, was substandard, spurious or defective. Therefore, we find no fault in the quality of the pesticide sold by the OP No.1 to the complainant and the OPs cannot be blamed for the loss suffered by the complainant in his paddy crops. The complaint of the complainant thus deserves dismissal.
5. In the light of above discussion, the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own cost. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court:
Dated: 27.03.2017
(Raghbir Singh),
President,
Distt.Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum,Fatehabad.
(Ansuya Bishnoi)
Member
