District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (Punjab) District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Govt. House No. 16-D, Civil Station, Near SSP Residence, Bathinda-151 001 consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/151
Shri Jarnail Singh
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA (PUNJAB) CC No. 151 of 06.06.2007 Decided on : 12-11-2007 1.Jarnail Singh S/o Sh. Banta Singh, R/o Village Jeond, District Bathinda. 2.Nazar Singh S/o Banta Singh, R/o Village Jeond, District Bathinda. ... Complainants Versus 1.M/s Garg Sales Corporation, Shop No. 132, Near Dharamshala, Patiala Mandi, Rampura Phul, Distt, Bathinda through its Prop. Sumit Garg. 2.The Chief Agriculture Officer, Bathinda. ...Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM : Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member For the Complainant : Sh. N.K. Jeet, Advocate. For the Opposite parties : Sh. Rajiv Gupta, Advocate, counsel for opposite party No. 1. Sh.Dharminderjeet Singh, Authorised Representative of opposite party No. 2 in person. O R D E R LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT 1. This complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') has been preferred by the complainants against the opposite parties seeking direction to them from this Forum to opposite party No. 1 to pay them Rs. 5,34,889/- as compensation alongwith interest and cost. 2. Factual matrix of the case lies in the narrow compass as under :- 3. Complainants are real brothers. They are agriculturists. In the year 2005, they had sown wheat crop in their 17 killas of land situated within the revenue limits of Village Jeond. To nurture the wheat crop, they had spent about Rs. 2750/- per killa on different operations such as : i) Tilling with discs twice @ Rs. 500/- per killa. ii) Tilling with plough once @ Rs. 200/- per killa. iii) Sowing @ Rs. 150/- per killa. iv) Suhaga once @ Rs. 400/- per killa v) Irrigation, Give times @ Rs. 1500/- per killa. Besides above, they had incurred the following expenditure to grow the wheat crop : i) Seeds 40 Kg. per killa, each Kg. of seed costing Rs. 15/- i.e. Rs. 600/- per killa. ii) DAP Fertilizer 50 Kg. Per Killa costing Rs. 467/-. iii) Urea Fertilizer 100 Kg. Per killa costing Rs. 480/-. In the manner stated above, they had incurred total cost of Rs. 4217/- per killa. Grand total of cost of 17 killas comes out to be Rs. 71,689/-. Besides this, they purchased Weedicides worth Rs. 9200/- from opposite party No. 1 for spraying the same on the crop. A sum of Rs. 2,000/- was spent towards labour charges for spraying the Weedicides. On the advice of opposite party No. 1, complainants had purchased 20 packets of Sulfosulfron 75% WG-each weighing 135 Gms and 5 packets of Metsulfuron Methyl 20% WP -8 Gms each. Bill No. 871 dated 6.1.06 was issued by opposite party No. 1 after receiving Rs 9200/-. Weedicides were sprayed on the wheat crop standing in 16 killas of land as per advice of opposite party No. 1. They were spurious. A few days after, they started causing harm and damage to the crop. Opposite party No. 1 was informed by them in the presence of S/Sh. Jeet Singh, Darshan Singh & Babu Singh all resident of village Jeond. They were requested to provide some remedial measures to save the wheat crop, but they paid no heed. Complaints were lodged by them with Sub Divisional Magistrate, Phul and Chief Agriculture Officer, Bathinda i.e. Opposite party No. 2. Opposite party No. 2 got the matter enquired into through Agriculture Officer, Rampura who had appointed two member team consisting of Dr. Jasvir Singh, Agriculture Development Officer Badiala and Dr. Gurbinder Singh, Agriculture Development Officer (PP) Rampura to look into the matter. This team had submitted its report after spot verification to the Agriculture Officer, Rampura which had forwarded it to opposite party No. 2 vide No. 477 dated 6.2.06. At the time of spot verification by this team S/Sh. Babu Singh, Amarjit Singh, Darshan Singh, Iqbal Singh, Jeeta Singh and many other residents of village Jeonda were present. Inquiry team had also taken samples of Sulfasulfuron 75% WG (headmaster) Batch No. AO-5005 and Meta Sulfuron Methyl 20% WP (Sungrip) Batch No. SCLJM-12. They were sent for test. As per report of the Enquiry team, damage which the crop had undergone was due to the spurious weedicides supplied by opposite party No. 1. Loss was estimated to the extent of 45-50%. It is further added by them (complainants) that normally a farmer gets 50-55 Qntls,. of wheat from a Killa. Assuming the produce as 50 Qntls per Killa and rate of Rs. 650/- per Qntl per Killa, they would have got produce worth Rs. 5,52,500/- from 17 Killas of land. But, actually they got only 170 Qntls produce worth Rs. 1,10,500/-. In this manner, they suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 4,42,500/- on this count. Besides this, their entire expenditure of Rs. 82,889/- has gone almost waste due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 1. They claim that they are entitled to recover a total sum of Rs. 5,34,889/-, the details of which are as under : i) Loss of crop - Rs. 4,42,000/- ii) Lost expenses - Rs. 82,889/- iii) Mental pain and agony - Rs. 10,000/- 4. Opposite party No. 1 filed its version taking legal objections that complaint is false and frivolous; it is bad for misjoinder of Nazar Singh complainant No. 2 who has no privity of contract whatsoever or locus standi to file the complaint against it as Jarnail Singh alone had purchased the Weedicides from it without disclosing or intimating even that they were meant to be jointly used by Nazar Singh also. According to it, complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. manufacturer of Weedicide Metsulfuron Methyl namely M/s Sudarshan Consolidated Limited, Samba, Jammu and manufacturer of Sulfosulfron namely M/s. Gharda Chemicals Limited, Dombivli, District Thane (Maharashtra). Complainants allege that Weedicides purchased by them were spurious. Relief can be claimed by them from the manufacturers. It is merely a dealer for sale of goods manufactured by these manufacturers. Weedicides purchased by complainant No. 1 were properly packed and in sealed condition in which they left the factory of manufacturers M/s. Sudarshan Consolidated Limited, Samba, Jammu, M/s. Gharda Chemicals Limited, Dombivli, District Thane and their respective Distributors M/s. Sudarshan Consolidated Limited, Gill Road, Ludhiana and M/s. Mahindra Shublabh Service Ltd., Bhokra respectively. Complainants are estopped from filing the complaint on account of their improper negligent usage of the Weedicides purchased by complainant No. 1 while allegedly spraying in their fields and also for their negligent default in taking due care of their crops. Claim propounded by them is unduly inflated and excessive. On merits, it admits that complainant No. 1 had purchased Weedicides worth Rs. 9200/- from it on 6.1.06 vide bill No. 871 without disclosing either the names of the persons intending to use the Weedicides or the area of land over which they were intended to be sprayed. It admits that some expenses are incurred by agriculturists in purchase of seeds and fertilizers. Cost allegedly incurred by the complainants is unduly inflated, excessive and false. It denies that Weedicides were purchased on its advice. It had drawn attention of complainant No. 1 to read and observe the instructions for use of Weedicides as mentioned in the Brochure contained in the packets before use. There is every possibility that instructions for use were not properly followed. It denies that Weedicides were spurious. Complainant No. 1 had approached it with false complaint of the growth of his crop having been affected after use of Weedicides. It had responded that he might not have followed the instructions properly and diligently. Complainant No. 1 had started issuing threats and threatened to bring pressure on it through Kisan Union. They, through, pressure tactics of Kisan Union pressurized the authorities to appoint two members team consisting Dr. Jasbir Singh and Dr. Gurbinder Singh to investigate the matter. Team had made spot verification but this verification was done in its absence. Report of the two members team placed on the record shows that only the growth of the wheat crop had been affected to the extent of 45% to 50%. Enquiry team further reported that if crop was not properly looked after by farmer then there was possibility of reduction in produce to the extent of 20% to 25%. This report is at variance with the undue false claim made by complainants in the complaint. Growth of the crop which was allegedly affected was also on account of improper use of Weedicides during spraying and failure to follow necessary instructions for which complainants themselves are solely responsible. It admits that samples of both the Weedicides were taken by the Enquiry team. According to it, samples were passed by the Laboratory. Deficiency in crop produce can be due to variety of factors including natural phenomena also. Complainant No. 1 had purchased 20 packets of Sulfa-sulfuron which quantity is meant for spray over land measuring 20 acres i.e. one packet for one acre. Complainants are responsible for overdose, if any. Remaining averments in the complaint stand denied by it. 5. Opposite party No. 2 filed reply of the complaint admitting that complainants had sown wheat in 17 Killas of land in 2005. They had spent Rs. 2750/- per acre on different operations and had purchased Weedicides for Rs. 9200/- which was sprayed on 17 Killas of Wheat crop. Two members team consisting of Dr. Jasbir Singh and Dr. Gurbinder Singh had inspected the Wheat crop and report was made by them to Agriculture Officer, Rampura who in turn had sent it to Chief Agriculture Officer, Bathinda. That team had taken samples of Weedicides and they were sent for test. Enquiry team had reported the loss as 20 to 25%. Normally 1 acre yield average 20 Qntls wheat and maximum retail price was Rs. 650/- per Qntl. 6. In support of their averments contained in the complaint, complainants have produced in evidence four affidavits i.e. of complainant No. 1 and 2, S/Sh. Darshan Singh and Babu Singh (Ex. C-1,Ex. C-5, Ex. C-4 and Ex. C-6 ) respectively, photocopy of Bill No. 871 dated 6.1.06 (Ex. C-2) and photocopy of report dated 6.2.06 ( Ex. C-3). 7. In rebuttal, on behalf of opposite party No. 1 affidavit of Sh. Sumit Garg, Proprietor (Ex. R-1), photocopies of reports of Insecticide Analysts (Ex. R-2 & Ex. R-3) and photocopy of legal notice (Ex. R-4) have been tendered in evidence. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record and briefs of written arguments submitted on behalf of complainants and opposite party No. 1. 9. Mr. N.K. Jeet, learned counsel for the complainants argued that purchase and use of the Weedicides by the complainants as per advice of the opposite parties has been proved by them. They have also proved damage which was caused to their Wheat crop due to the use of Weedicides. There was no other cause of damage except due to Weedicides. Deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 1 is proved. It did not provide antidote to save the Wheat crop from the bad affect of Weedicides. Opposite party No. 2 has admitted that complainants would have got Rs. 2,08,000/- from 16 Killas of land. He also drew our attention to the written arguments in which compensation prayed for is Rs. 1,10,500/- as loss to crop, Rs. 82,889/- towards expenses and Rs. 10,000/- for mental pain and agony. 10. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 vociferously argued that complainants have failed to establish deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 1. 11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments. 12. Sale of Weedicides by opposite party No. 1 to complainant No. 1 stands admitted by opposite party No. 1 in the reply of the complaint. Even otherwise it is proved from the copy of the bill which is Ex. C-2. Main allegation of the complainants against opposite party No. 1 is that the Weedicides sold by it were spurious. This fact is evident from paras No. 6 & 9 of the complaint and paras No. 2,3 & 5 of the legal notice dated 5.5.06, copy of which is Ex. R-4. Samples of the Weedicides were taken by the Equiry team. Complainant did not muster courage to prove the result of the Laboratory Analysis of them (samples). Opposite party No. 1 got the reports produced from the office of Agriculture Officer. Copies of the reports are Ex. R-2 & Ex. R-3 respectively. They show that the samples confirm to their specifications with respect to percentage active ingredient contents. Hence, the contention of the complainant that Weedicides were spurious and the crop suffered damage due to them is falsified. 13. Complaint is also bad for non-joinder of manufacturers of the Weedicides. As discussed above, complainants allege that Weedicides were spurious. They did not deem it fit to implead them as the opposite parties despite objection taken by opposite party No. 1. It is not their case that Weedicides were not kept by opposite party No. 1 in the condition in which they were sent by the manufacturers. Simply because opposite party No. 1 sold the Weedicides to complainant No. 1, relief even if it is presumed for arguments sake that it shall be given, cannot be claimed by the complainants from opposite party No. 1. In this view of the matter, we get support from the observations in the authorities Raja Mohammed Vs. Dhanabagyam & Another I(2006) CPJ 603 and Zuari Agro Chemicals Ltd., Vs. P. Malla Reddy I(2004) CPJ 161. 14. As per copy of the bill Ex. C-2 Weedicides were purchased only by complainant No. 1. In such a situation complaint is bad for mis-joinder of Nazar Singh, complainant No. 2. Contention of the complainants that Weedicides were purchased as per advice of opposite party No. 1 stands refuted by opposite party No. 1 who contends that they were purchased straight forward by complainant No. 1 without making any enquiry and without disclosing the names and number of persons likely to use and the area of land intended to be covered for spraying purposes. So far as affidavits Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-5 of complainant No. 1 & complainant No. 2 respectively are concerned, they stand amply rebutted with the affidavit of Sh. Sumit Garg, Proprietor of opposite party No. 1. Affidavits Ex. C-4 & Ex. C-6 of S/Sh. Darshan Singh and Babu Singh deserve no credence as they are inadmissible. They claim that they were present all the times i.e. at the time of purchase, preparing fields for cultivation, spraying the Weedicides, making complaints, inspection of the crop and taking samples. To the contrary, complainants do not allege their presence on each and every occasion. They have gone to the extent of saying in their affidavits that claim of the complainants may be accepted and opposite parties may be directed to pay compensation as claimed in the complaint alongwith interest and cost. Hence, they are interested witnesses. In para No. 10 of their affidavits S/Sh. Darshan Singh and Babu Singh have stated that as per report of the Enquiry team damage suffered by the Wheat crop was due to spurious Weedicides supplied by opposite party No. 1. On this aspect, their affidavits have proved false with the Laboratory reports, copies of which are Ex. R-2 & Ex. R-3. Affidavits have not been properly verified due to which they become inadmissible in view of the authorities Raghbir Singh and another Vs. The State of Haryana 1990(2) SLJ 972 and Inder Pal Dua & Anr Vs. M/s. Yash Garg & Co. 2002(3) Civil Court Cases 437 (P&H). 15. Contention of the learned counsel for opposite parties No. 1 that there is discrepancy as regards the extent of area over which Weedicides were sprayed is tenable . As per averments in the complaint, wheat crop was sown in 17 Killas of land. According to Ex. C-3 Weedicides were sprayed on the crop in 16 Killas of land. Complaint reveals that 20 packets of Sulfosulfron were sprayed over 16/17 Killas of land whereas report Ex. C-3 shows that 4 packets of Sulfosulfron were lying spare. It means that only 16 packets were used. Complainants did not get tested the packets with them. 16. Arguments of the learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 that extent of damage has remained unproved as claims in this regard are contradictory, is acceptable. In the complaint, complainants allege that a farmer gets 50/55 Qntls Wheat from a Killa. Assuming 50 Qntls per Killa and rate as Rs. 650/- per Qntl., they would have got produce worth Rs. 5,52,500/- from 17 Killas but actually they got only 170 Qntls of Wheat worth Rs. 1,50,500/-. Hence, they suffered loss of Rs. 4,42,000/- . In the legal notice dated 5.5.06, copy of which is Ex. R-4 loss alleged by them is to the tune of Rs. 1,90,400/- only. In the affidavits Ex. C-4 & Ex. C-6 loss has been alleged to be of about 170 Qntls of Wheat. Hence loss as per affidavits of S/Sh. Darshan Singh and Babu Singh works out to be of Rs. 1,10,500/- only. Complainants have not placed on record J Forms regarding the sale of their produce in the previous years. No record of Market Committee has been produced. From this adverse inference is drawn against the complainants regarding the loss to the crop. Affidavits of the complainants on all the aspects including the one that opposite party No. 1 did not provide some antidote and remedial measures, stand bracketed with the affidavit of Sh. Sumit Garg. Moreover plea of the complainants in the complaint that they had requested opposite party No. 1 to provide some remedial measures to save the wheat crop but he refused to listen, appears to us to be an after thought. On 5.5.06 complainant No. 1 sent legal notice to opposite party No. 1 . There is nothing in the legal notice, copy of which is Ex. R-4 that request for remedial measure to save the wheat crop was made and opposite party No. 1 paid no heed. Ex. C-3 is the copy of the report of the Agriculture Development Officer. A perusal of this document shows that Enquiry team found that growth of crop has been affected to the tune of 45-50%. They further observed that if crop was not properly cared, there was possibility of yield going down to the extent of 20-25%. Complainants have not established that after inspection of the crop by the Enquiry team, the wheat crop was properly looked after by them and that despite it, there was less produce. There is no cogent and convincing evidence of the complainants to show that damage to the crop was certainly on account of Weedicides supplied by opposite party No. 1. As discussed above, Weedicides supplied by opposite party No. 1 were not spurious. It being so, how can the Weedicides be said to be responsible for the loss to the wheat crop. There could be some other factors due to which there was no proper growth of the wheat crop such as quality of water for irrigation, improper use or failure to follow the instructions or even use of other Weedicides. In the facts and circumstances of this case, opposite party No. 1 cannot be saddled with the responsibility of loss to the crop particularly when the Weedicides were not spurious. 17. Complainants have gone to the extent of claiming Rs. 82,889/- as the expenses incurred toward the crop. When the complainants are claiming loss to the crop, their separate claim for such expenses is not justified. 18. In the premises written above, we are of the view that complainants have failed to establish deficiency in services on the part of opposite party No. 1. Accordingly, complaint being devoid of merits, is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned. Pronounced : 12-11--2007 (Lakhbir Singh ) President (Hira Lal Kumar ) Member (Dr. Phulinder Preet) Member
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
