Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 681.
Instituted on : 08.12.2011.
Decided on : 17.07.2015.
Jeet Singh son of Shri Ram Dhari resident of V.& P.O. Anwali, Tehsil Gohana and District Sonepat.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Gurpreet Singh, Prop. of M/s Hari Dass Beej Bhandar(KHAD), Pilli Kothi, Old Bus Stand, Hisar Road, Rohtak Tehsil and District Rohtak(Haryana).
- Marketted Authority of Manufacturing, EID Point(P) Ltd., 7th Floor Tower C. DLF Cyber Green Sector-25A, DLF, City Phase-III Gurgaon-1220022(Haryana).
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Virender Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.S.C.Chaudhary, Advocate for the opposite party no.1.
Sh.Ashwani Kumar Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that opposite party no.1 is authorized dealer of opposite party no.2 as opposite party no.2 is the manufacturer of the medicines in question and complainant had purchased the medicines for a sum of Rs.1230/- vide bill no.188 dated 30.07.2011. Rather the bill was issued by the opposite party no.1 in favour of the complainant on 6.8.2011. It is averred that the medicine in question was for the removal of Makra Kharpatwar and medicine was consigned in six bottles and was used by the complainant in his 6 acres of agricultural land. The name of the medicine was ALMIX. It is averred that complainant has to spend a huge amount of Rs.503000/- for ploughing, irrigation, manures and zinks etc. for preparing those six acres of land. The complainant used the alleged medicine according to the directions and instructions given by the opposite party no. 1 in the alleged land. It is averred that despite using the said medicine by the complainant in his 6 acres of land the MAKRA KHARPATWAR grown day by day as usual and after that the complainant visited the shop of opposite party no.1 and told him that medicine in question is not working at all and approved 100% useless and crop of the complainant was totally damaged as the opposite party no.1 has supplied the said medicine of very inferior quality. But the opposite party no.1 did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lastly having no alternative the complainant approached by way of submitting an application to the Director, Agriculture Rohtak on 12.08.2011 and the application was marked to Dy. Director, Agriculture, Sonepat who inspected the fields and the matter was marked to Agricultural Authority, Gohana who submitted his inspection report on 18.08.2011 mentioning therein that the complainant has suffered a loss of 50 percent. But in fact the complainant suffered a loss of 100 percent. Complainant served a legal notice upon the opposite parties but of no use. It is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is averred that opposite parties may kindly be directed to make the payment of Rs.1230/- as price of medicine, Rs.1100/- as compensation amount plus Rs.400000/- as loss of crops of 6 acre and Rs.3300/- as legal fee for conducting the present proceedings with costs of this complaint alongwith interest from 20.07.2011 till realization to the complainant.
2. On notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their separate written statement. Opposite party no.1 in its reply has submitted that the answering opposite party is the only dealer and had purchased the alleged medicine from Shyamlal Suresh Kumar vide bill no.29105 and had been sold in retail. It is averred that there is no complaint from any of the customer. It is averred that there is no Fard Jamabandi placed on record to prove that the alleged medicine was used in 6 acres of land. It is averred that the loss has been assessed wrongly by the complainant. It is averred that the use of medicine depends upon its method of use and if the right method was adopted no loss to the crops was possible. It is denied that the complainant has suffered a loss as demanded by him due to answering opposite party. As such dismissal of the complaint has been sought.
3. Opposite party no.2 in its written reply has submitted that it is denied that opposite party no.1 is an authorized dealer of the answering opposite party and therefore, the authenticity of the medicine purchased by the complainant, cannot be confirmed. It is denied that Almix, the medicine in question, can be used for the ‘removal” of MAKRA KHARPATWAR. It is averred that neither the answering opposite party nor the accompanying leaflet has ever claimed that MAKRA can be removed with the usage of Almix. It is averred that the question of using Almix by the complainant as per instruction is baseless and the complaint has been filed only to harass the answering opposite party. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
5. Complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A & Ex.CW2/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.1 in its evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A & document Ex.RW2/B and closed his evidence. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.2 in its evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1, documents Ex.RW1/A & Ex.RW1/B and has closed its evidence.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
7. In the present case it is not disputed that as per receipt no.267 dated 06.08.2011 placed on file as Ex.C2, complainant Jeet Singh had purchased 6 Dhanuvir and 6 Almix medicine for Rs.210/- and Rs.1020/- respectively from the opposite party no.1. As per copy of jamabandi Ex.C5 and Ex.C6 to Ex.C9, Dharamvir and Balwan are owner of land and as per receipts Ex.C10 and Ex.C11 they have given their land on contract to the complainant for 3 years @ Rs.30000/- per acre i.e. Rs.90000/- per year. As per application Ex.C3 complainant had requested the Deputy Director Agriculture Department to inspect his crops in 6 acres of land which was destroyed due to medicine/spray given by the opposite party. As per the Inspection Report Ex.C4, A team of Agriculture Officers comprising of Dr. Joginder Singh SMS(PP), Dr. Rajender Prasad SMD(Agro) and Dr. Anand Singh ADO, Anwali inspected the fields of complainant and found that in six acres of land complainant had sprayed the weedicide named ‘Adora’ and ‘Almix’ purchased from the opposite party no.1 and the actual economic loss to the farmer, due to non effectiveness of weedicides on weeds may be approximately estimates upto 50% in the average yield of the crop. On the other hand, opposite party no.1 vide affidavit Ex.RW2/A of Gurpreet Singh has submitted that the opposite party no.1 had purchased the alleged product from Shyam Lal and Suresh Kumar vide bill No.29105 dated 20.07.2011 and had sold the same to the complainant in the same position as it had received and has placed on record copy of bill Ex.RW2/B whereby the opposite party no.1 had purchased the alleged medicine from Shyam Lal Suresh Kumar, Hissar Road, Rohtak. On the other hand, opposite party no.2 has stated that no proper instructions followed by the complainant hence no proper result can be obtained. It is further submitted that the medicine in question, cannot be used for removal of MARKA KHARPATWAR. Neither the answering opposite party nor the accompanying leaflet has ever claimed that MARKA can be removed with the usage of Almix. It is also submitted that there is no defect in the medicine manufactured by the answering opposite party.
8. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per Leaflet Ex.RW1/B, it is clearly mentioned that Dupont Almix is meant for the control of weedicide(KHARPATWAR) but after spray of the same in six acres of Peddy Crop by the complainant, there was no control over the weeds resulted in the economic loss to the complainant and as per report Ex.C4 it is proved that the complainant had suffered the 50% loss of his wheat crops in 6 acres of land due to spray of alleged medicine “Almix” purchased from opposite party no.1 and manufactured by opposite party no. 2. On the other hand, opposite parties have failed to prove that no proper instructions were followed by the complainant to use the alleged medicine. In this regard we have placed reliance upon the law cited in II(2015588(NC) titled as Seed Works International Vs. Nampelly Sudhakar etc. whereby Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi has held that: “Defective Seed-Low germination- Nothing stopped OPs from applying for test and analysis and sending requisite sample on their own-Unfair trade practice proved”, as per III(2014)CPJ196(Hr.) titled as Shakti Vardhak Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajpal & Ors. whereby Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, Panchkula has held that: “Purchase of seeds-Defects-Loss of crops-Deficiency in service-compensation claimed-District Forum allowed complaint-Hence appeal-Contention, reports submitted by Deputy Director was not as per guidelines issued by Director of agriculture-Not accepted-Constitution of inspection team as per letter of Director of Agriculture and not associating dealer of seeds was not the fault of farmers at all for which they should not be allowed to suffer”, as per II(2008)CPJ 165(NC) titled Ankur Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kondabrolu Hasen Rao & Ors., Hon’ble National Commission has held that: “Agriculture-Seeds-Defective growth of plants noticed-Report of Horticulture Officer produced in support- No expert report produced to counter report of Horticulture Officer- Quantum of compensation awarded by Forum, reasonable, upheld-Revision dismissed” and as per 2008(2)CLT 668 titled India Seed House Vs. Ramjilal Sharma & Anr., Hon’ble National Commission has held that: “It is not expected from every buyer of the seeds to set apart some quantity of seeds for testing on the presumption that seeds would be defective and he would be called upon to prove the same through laboratory testing-A senior officer of the Government after visiting the field and inspecting the crop given report under his hand and seal certifying the seeds were defective”. Regarding the manufacturing defect as per 2006(1) 537 titled Raja Mohammad Vs. Dhanabagyam & Anr. Hon’ble Tamil Nadu State Commission, Chennai has held that: “In the event of its being found that there was manufacturing defect and the claimant would be entitled to the relief, there could be an award only against the manufacturer and not against the dealer”. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts & circumstances of the case, it is observed that there was manufacturing defect in the alleged medicine and opposite party no.2 is liable to compensate the complainant. On the other hand law cited by ld. counsel for the opposite party titled as M/s Monsanto India Ltd. Vs. Gurmukh Singh etc. decided on 18.04.2012 by the Hon’ble Haryana State Commission and Jaswinder Singh Vs. M/s Punjab Pesticides and Seeds decided on 30.01.2014 by the Hon’ble National Commission are not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case.
9. Now the question arises as to what amount of compensation be awarded to the complainant? In this regard it is observed that as per report Ex.C4 the complainant had sowed the seed in the month of July 2011 and at that time the rate of one quintal was approx. Rs.1250/- and in one acre of land approx.15 quintal wheat can be produced. Hence the complainant suffered a loss of crop in 6 acres i.e. 15x9 =90 quintal @ Rs.1250/- per quintal. Accordingly the total loss of crops in 6 acres of land comes to Rs.1250/- x 90 = Rs.112500/- and the 50% of the same comes to Rs.56250/-. It is also observed that in one acre of land, cost of cultivation charges amounting to Rs.1700/-, cost of seeds Rs.1300/- and fertilizer amounting to Rs.1300/- would be suffice to meet out the ends of justice. Cost of medicine/Almix as per bill Ex.C2 is Rs.1020/-. Accordingly the complainant suffered a total loss amounting to Rs.56250/-(loss of crops) + Rs.10200/-(1700/- x 6) on account of cultivation charges, +Rs.7800/-(1300/-x 6) on account of seeds+ Rs.7800/-(1300 x 6)on account of fertilizer +Rs.1020/-(cost of medicine) i.e. total amounting to Rs.83070/-.
10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is directed that opposite party No.2 shall pay the compensation of Rs.83070/- (Rupees eighty three thousand and seventy only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 08.12.2011 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2500/-(Rupees two thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of announcement of this order failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of decision. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
11. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
12. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
17.07.2015.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
