BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no 39 of 2013
Date of Institution : 25.1.2013
Date of Decision : 10.12.2015
Prithvi Chand, aged about 45 years son of Sh.Bholu Ram, r/o village Ali Mohammad, Tehsil & Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- M/s Friends Sales Corporation, shop no.20, Sirsa Club, Janta Bhawan Road, Sirsa (Hry), through its proprietor or partner.
- M/s Dow Agro Scinces India Pvt. Ltd., Unit no.1, First Floor, Corporate Park, V.N.Purav Marg, Chambur, Mumbai-400071.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SMT.GURPREET KAUR GILL……PRESIDING MEMBER.
SH.RAJIV MEHTA…… MEMBER.
Present: Sh.M.M.Pareek, Advocate for complainant.
Sh.N.K.Daroliya Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh.Ritesh Madan, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
In brief, case of the complainant is that on the assurance given by Opposite party no.1 that their pesticide is of very good quality, quite genuine and original, he had purchased the pesticide tracer bearing batch no.1110 weighing 250 ml on 12.8.2012 for an amount of Rs.3550/- alongwith some other product from Op no.1 on cash payment, vide cash memo no.9868 dt. 12.8.2012. After purchase, the complainant sprayed the said pesticide on the kapas crops in his fields, but the said product did not give fruitful result and rather it caused damages to the crops. The production of kapas crop would have been about 40 monds per acre but it was merely about 10 monds per acre and thus, the complainant suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs.72000/- per acre i.e. total Rs.2,88,000/-. Therefore, the complainant moved the matter to the Agriculture department as well as to the opposite parties, but no action was taken by them. Hence, this complaint for compensation alongwith damages for harassment, humiliation and litigation expenses etc.
2. Opposite parties, in their written statements, admitted the sale of pesticide to the complainant. It is pleaded that the complainant never used or sprayed ‘Tracer’ in his fields. The respondents have sold the original pesticide to the complainant, therefore, there is no question of any such loss, harassment etc.. Moreover, the crop depends upon so many factors like the method of sowing the crop, irrigation, quality and kind of land, variation in the crop, kind of water etc. It may be due to other factors including water quality used for irrigation, long dry spell, sowing methodology etc.. The complainant never reported any defect in the said pesticides to the opposite parties. He has also not got examined the fields by experts intentionally. The complainant never submitted any report of the expert, chemical examination of the pesticides and any sample packet/bottle of the pesticides. Remaining averments have also been denied.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record various documents i.e. Ex.PW1-his own affidavit, whereas the respondents have tendered Ex.R1-affidavit of Ravinder Singh, authorized representative of DOW; Ex.R2-affidavit of Nathu Ram, Prop. of op no.1; Ex.R3-letter of Sub Divisional Agri. Officer written to Op no.1 regarding sample of pesticide; Ex.R4-letter dt. 26.9.2012 written by Op no.1 to OP no.2.
4. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. The main dispute in this complaint is that adulterated, inferior quality and sub standard pesticide was sold by the respondent no. 1. Due to this adulterated pesticide the total production of the land of the complainant was very less. The complainant moved an application to the Agriculture Department, Sirsa for inspection of the standing crop and to give the report. On the direction of Deputy Director Agriculture, the spot was inspected by the Sub-Divisional Agriculture Officer, Sirsa who gave his report dated Nil which is on record. The crop was less/produced as promised by the OP no.1.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has argued that in the report given by Agriculture Department, there is no khasra/killa number in which the complainant has allegedly used the pesticide. Moreover, the alleged inspection has not been made in the presence of Ops.
7. On careful examination of the documents and affidavits of the parties
and hearing of the arguments of learned counsels for the parties, it is clear that the complainant failed to prove that the pesticides were defected. The case of the complainant depends upon report of the officers of the Agriculture Department. We carefully gone through the report of the officers of Agriculture department. Vide Ex.R3, Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Sirsa directed to Op no.1 to provide the sample of this lot. In this reference, Op no.1 sent a letter Ex.R4 to Op no.2 to provide such sample, but there is no sample and no sample report on the file. Only there is correspondence made by the parties. Hence, no sample of pesticide was procured from the opposite parties nor any sample was sent to the Lab for analysis that pesticide sold by the OP no.1 to the complainant was defective or adulterated. Official of Agriculture department sent the letter to Ops to procure the sample, but there is no clarification on the file whether the Ops provided the sample to the Agriculture Department or not. Without any lab report, it is not possible to conclude that the pesticide sold to the complainant was adulterated or defective. It would also not be out of place to mention here that the officials of the agriculture department have also not mentioned the khasra and killa numbers of the land which was allegedly inspected by the officials of the agriculture department. From report, the identity of the land cannot 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 simply on the basis of a self serving affidavit when there is no evidence with respect to the less crop. It cannot be said that the complainant had really suffered any loss due to defective seed.
8. As per letter of Director Agriculture Department dated 3.1.2002, issued to all the Deputy Director in the State in which it is directed by the Director Agriculture, inspection team consisting with total four members, two officer of Agriculture Department, one representative from concerned seed agency and one scientist from Krishi Vigyan Kendra. But in this case neither the such type of committee consisted nor any notice was issued to ops for spot verification. Complainant has failed to produce the mandatory documents to establish his case i.e. Fard jamabandi, khasra girdawari etc.
9. The learned counsel for respondent produced the latest judgments titled Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-op. Ltd. Vs. Ram Swaroop (NC) in Revision petition no.1295 of 2014 decided on 26.11.2014; Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-op. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Bhup Singh (NC) in Revision petition no.2144 of 2014 decided on 9.4.2015; Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-op. Ltd. Vs. Jagdish (NC) in Revision petition no.2143 of 2014 decided on 9.4.2015 and Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-op. Ltd. Vs. Sunder Lal (NC) in Revision petition no.2502 of 2014 decided on 9.4.2015. In the above mentioned judgments/revision. Their Lordship discussed above all the mentioned facts and accepted the revisions of petitioner (IFFCO) and declined the pleas of respondent/complainant.
10. Learned counsel for respondent also produced the judgment titled Gujarat State Coop. Mktg. Federation Ltd. Vs. Ghanshyambhai Fulabhai Patel, III(2011) CPJ 433 (NC), wherein it is held that poor germination of seeds cannot always be attributed to quality of the seeds, as germination depends on many factors, including type of irrigation, fertility of soil, proper use of pesticides, fertilizers, sufficient quality and sufficient quantity of the seeds.
11. Accordingly the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, 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 after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Presiding Member,
Dated:10.12.2015. District Consumer Disputes
Member. Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Prithvi Chand Vs. M/s. Friends Sales
Present: Sh.M.M.Pareek, Advocate for complainant.
Sh.N.K.Daroliya Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh.Ritesh Madan, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Arguments heard. For order to come up on 10.12.2015.
Dated:2.12.2015.
Member. Presiding Member,
DCDRF,Sirsa.
Present: Sh.M.M.Pareek, Advocate for complainant.
Sh.N.K.Daroliya Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh.Ritesh Madan, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Order announced. Vide separate order of even date, complaint has been dismissed with no order as to costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Presiding Member,
Dated:10.12.2015. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
