BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 63 of 2018
Date of Institution : 16.02.2018
Date of Decision : 03.01.2019
Harbans Lal son of Sh. Sudagar Ram, resident of village Dhanur, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. M/S. Kamboj Pesticides Vill. Dhanoor, Distt. Sirsa.
2. JU Agri Sciences Pvt. Ltd. A-61/3 UPSIDC IND. Area Sikandrabad- 203205, Distt. Bulandshahar (U.P) .
..…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA……………….. PRESIDENT
SHRI ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL ……MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
In brief, the case of complainant is that on 10.1.2017 complainant had purchased four boxes of metsulfuron methyl 20% WP pesticide from opposite party no.1 vide bill no.513 batch no.3437 for an amount of Rs.90/- per box and for total amount of Rs.360/-. The said pesticide is manufactured by opposite party no.2. That complainant had sprayed the said pesticide in wheat crop in two acres two kanal of agricultural land comprised in rectangle no.95//1 and 88/22 and Killa no.88//’13 and 18. That after one week of the said spray the plants of wheat crop of the complainant were burnt. It is further averred that due to supply of misbranded pesticide by opposite party no.1, the crop of the complainant in two acres two kanal of land was fully damaged due to which complainant suffered financial loss as well as mental harassment and financial position of the complainant became worst. It is further averred that when complainant went to op no.1 and disclosed about the above said fact to op no.1, the op no.1 misbehaved with him. The op no.1 did not listen him despite his several visits. The report of officers of agricultural department are attached in this regard. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed reply raising certain preliminary objections regarding locus standi, cause of action, estoppal, concealment of true and material facts, no deficiency in service and that complaint in hand is not maintainable in the present form as no defect in the pesticide is proved in the present complaint. It is submitted that in this case, the field of complainant was first inspected by the officers of Agriculture Department on 30.1.2018 and thereafter, samples of the pesticides in question were taken by the officers of the agriculture department from the premises of op no.1. As per report given by the Quality Control Inspector, the pesticides was reported to be within permissible limits. Thereafter, the op no.2 moved an application to the Deputy Director, Department of Agriculture, Sirsa on 26.2.2018 for re-inspection of field of the complainant. Thereafter, the field of complainant was re-inspected by the officers of Agriculture Department on 7.3.2018 wherein no loss to the crop of complainant has been shown. So, the complainant has not suffered any alleged loss to his crop with the use of pesticides in question, as such present complaint cannot proceed any further and same is liable to be dismissed on this very score. With these averments, dismissal of complaint has been prayed for.
3. The parties then led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of inspection report Ex.C1, copy of bill Ex.C2, copy of adhar card Ex.C3, copy of jamabandi Ex.C4. On the other ops produced affidavit of Sh. Surender Area Sales Manager Ex.R1, copy of application regarding re-inspection Ex.R2, copy of application Ex.R3, copy of inspection report Ex.R4, copies of laboratory test reports Ex.R5 and Ex.R6 and affidavit of Sh. Hari Kishan, sole proprietor of op no.1.
4. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. The perusal of the record reveals that complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of inspection report Ex.C1, copy of bill Ex.C2, copy of adhar card Ex.C3, copy of jamabandi Ex.C4. On the other ops in order to prove their defence plea have furnished affidavit of Sh. Surender Area Sales Manager Ex.R1, copy of application regarding re-inspection Ex.R2, copy of application Ex.R3, copy of inspection report Ex.R4, copies of laboratory test reports Ex.R5 and Ex.R6 and affidavit of Sh. Hari Kishan, sole proprietor of op no.1.
6. It is undisputed fact between the parties that complainant is an agriculturist who had purchased metsulfuron methyl 20% WP pesticide from opposite party no.1 vide bill no.513 dated 10.1.2017 for total amount of Rs.360/-. It is further undisputed fact that complainant had moved to the agricultural department regarding damage of his crop due to spray of above pesticide and inspection was made by officers of the agricultural department and they submitted their report Ex.C1. As per report Ex.C1, the farmer had sown wheat crop in about two acres two kanal land and after spray of some pesticide 50% plants of wheat crop were becoming yellowish after burning and there was possibility of loss of 50% of yield in the above said land to the farmer.
7. The perusal of the evidence of the opposite parties reveals that ops moved an application to the Deputy Director, Department of Agriculture, Sirsa, copy of which is Ex.R2 by which a request was made for re-inspection of the field of complainant and on inspection of field of complainant, the officers of agriculture department submitted their detailed report Ex.R4 by which they reported that on inspection of the field of complainant on 7.3.2018, they did not find any effect of pesticide and the crop of the farmer is well and growth is normal and there is possibility of about 40 to 45 mound yield per acre. Moreover, a sample of the said pesticide was taken by the officers of agriculture department which was sent to the Govt. laboratory for analysis and as per report Ex.R5 of the laboratory, the pesticide found to be permissible.
8. So from the evidence of parties, it is proved that complainant has failed to prove that he suffered any loss in his wheat crop due to misbranded pesticide which was purchased by complainant from op no.1 manufactured by op no.2 by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Moreover, complainant has not placed on record any copy of khasra girdawari in support of his contention from which it could be presumed that there was loss of crop to complainant.
9. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. Member President, Dated:03.01.2019. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
