Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 308.
Instituted on : 19.05.2017.
Decided on : 08.07.2019.
Karambir, age 29 years, son of Sh. Balraj, R/o village-Dobh, Tehsil & District-Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- M/s Haridas Khad Beej Bhandar through its Proprietor, Pili Kothi, Near Old Bus Stand, Hissar Road, Rohtak.
- M/s ADAMA AGAIN Limited (Through its Manager), Northern Industrial Zone, P.O.B. 262, Ashdod, Israll.
3. M/s ADAMA India Pvt. Limited (Through its Manager), Plot No. DS-13, IKP Knowledge Park, Sr. No. 42/2, Geonome Vally Turukapally, Shameerpet, Ranga Reddy, District Hyderabad-500078.
4. Customer Care Cell ADAMA India Pvt. Ltd. through its Manager, Plot No. D-II/CH/1, G.I.D.C. Estate, Dahej, Til Vagra, District Bharuch, Gujarat-392130.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite party No.1 exparte.
Sh. Kunal Juneja, Advocate for the opposite party No.2 to 4.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant had purchased Kharpatwar Nashak namely Tamar 2, 4-D for sugarcane crops for Rs.1340/- vide cash memo no.11492/- from the opposite party No.1. That the complainant spent Rs.85000/- to plough the fields, sowing the seeds, irrigation and fertilizing etc. That above said spray was not of good quality and complainant moved an application before Divisional Agriculture Officer, Rohtak and he deputed the team of experts and they inspected the crop of complainant and as per their report, there was more than 80% crops of sugarcane burnt out due to spray of above said medicine. That on receipt of alleged report, complainant visited to the shop of opposite party many times and requested him to compensate the complainant but despite his repeated personal visits and requests, the opposite party failed to compensate the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to pay Rs.90000/- as compensation alongwith refund of Rs.1340/- on account of bill amount and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 did not appear despite service and as such opposite party no.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 10.07.2017 of this Forum. Opposite party No.2 to 4 in their reply has submitted that OPs have sold bulk quantity of the product to the various distributors/dealers including respondent no.1 but no complaint from any corner has ever been received till date. It is averred that the product Tamar is manufactured by M/s ADAMA India Pvt. Ltd., a company of great repute and the company is quality conscious in all respects. It is denied that the abovesaid spray was not good quality for which the complainant paid Rs.1340/- to the opposite party as alleged. It is denied that as per report of ADO, there was more than 80% crop of sugarcane burnt out due to spray of above said Kharpatwar Nashak as alleged. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.C1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and has closed his evidence on dated 08.10.2018. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party No.2 to 4 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R1 to Ex.R2 and closed their evidence on dated 26.11.2018.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. Perusal of the documents shows that as per copy of inspection report Ex.C3, complainant Karambir has suffered loss of 80% to his crops of sugarcane in one acre of land due to spray of alleged herbicide purchased from the opposite parties. On the other hand, contention of ld. counsel for the OPs is that no proper procedure/guidelines were followed by the complainant and OPs were never asked to join the officials of the department of agriculture.
6. We have also placed reliance upon the law 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” and we also find support to our contention from case titled Kanta Kantha Rao Vs.Y.Surya Narayana (NCDRC), New Delhi cited in 2017(2)CPJ 549.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that due to spray of alleged herbicide in his land, purchased by the complainant from the opposite party no.1 and manufactured by opposite party no.2 to 4, the sugarcane crop of one acre of land was destroyed upto the extent of 80% and this fact is established by the report Ex.C3 given by the officials of Agriculture Department i.e. SMS(PP) Rohtak and Block Agriculture Officer, Rohtak .
8. In view of the same, it is observed that complainant has suffered loss of sugarcane crop in 1 acres of land. In one acre of land, there is average production of 300 quintal of sugarcane crop and the rate of sugarcane per quintal is Rs.310/- and the loss of one acre comes to Rs.93000/-. As the crop was destroyed upto the extent of 80%, we hereby assess the loss as 80% i.e.Rs.74400/-. As such, complaint is allowed and the opposite party No.2 to 4 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.74400/-(Rupees seventy four thousand four hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 19.05.2017 till its realization and also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
08.07.2019.
……...............................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member
