Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/45/2020

Balvinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Kisan Agriculture Store - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

16 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.

                                   Sh.Rajbir Singh, President.                                                         Smt.Harisha Mehta and Dr.K.S.Nirania, Members

                                                        Complaint Case No.45 of 2020.                                                                 Date of Instt.: 10.02.2020.                                                                          Date of Decision:16.11.2023.

Balwinder Singh son of Gurdiyal Singh resident of village Chandpura Sub Tehsil Jakhal Khand Tohana District Fatehabad.

                                                                            ...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. M/s Kisan Agriculture Store Anaj Mandi Patiala Road, Jakhal Mandi District Fatehabad Tin No.06AALPN 1428 QIZB through its proprietor.
2. Bayer Cop-science Ltd. Factory village Nimbua Post Office Mubarakpur 140209 Tehsil Derra Bassi District SAS Nagar, Mohali Punjab through its Director.
3. Bayer House Central Avenue Hiranandani Estate Thane West 4006076 through its Director.                                                                                                                                                      ...Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:                Complainant in person.                                                                              Sh.Nishant Jain, Advocate for Op No.1.                                                      Sh.Pawan Bishnoi, Advocate for Ops No.2 & 3.       

ORDER

Sh.Rajbir Singh, President

 

1.                          Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased insecticide ATLANTIS Surfactant (Bayer) having batch No.RHB19E0038 from Op No.1 vide invoice No.2901 dated 01.01.2020; that the complainant sprayed the purchased insecticide on the wheat crop standing in his land by following the instructions issued by the Ops but the crop upto 60 to 70 % got  damaged due to spraying of inferior quality of insecticide; that on the complaint of the complainant Op No.1 inspected the land of the complainant and found that the crop got damaged due to spraying of insecticide but did not make the loss good;  that thereafter the complainant moved an application to Agriculture Department whereupon  the officials of the concerned Department had opined great loss to the crop of the complainant to the extent of 60 to 70 %; that the complainant requested the Ops to make the loss good but they did not make the loss good. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. In evidence, affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C4 have been placed on file.

2.                          On notice, Ops appeared and filed their separate replies. OP No.1 in its reply has taken preliminary objections such as cause of action, concealment of material facts, maintainability and non joinder of necessary party etc. It has been further submitted that that insecticide in question was purchased by the complainant at his own with his sweet will; that the replying op had never advised the complainant for spraying the same in his land; that the product in question was sold in sealed packet after purchasing the same from Bayer corposcience Ltd. on 13.11.2019; that the product was sold as per the norms of the government and the same was found fit for use in the report dated 02.03.2020. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                          Op Nos.2 & 3 in their joint reply have submitted that there is no deficiency in service on behalf of replying Ops as the product Atlantis is one of the standard products; that in the report dated the concerned officials of Agriculture Department have opined that the complainant would suffer loss to the extent of 40-50 % in 2.5 acre and 60-70% in 3.5 acres of land and they also opined that same can be due to use of weedicide; that the report has been made on the basis of guess without any proof because the adverse effect on the wheat crop can be due to the quality of land, quality of water, source of irrigation, quality of fertilizer and quality of pesticides used by the farmer & weather condition prevailing at the relevant time; that the concerned officials had also taken the sample of the pesticide and on analysis in the lab at Chandigarh, the same was found branded/fit for use. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.  In evidence the Ops have tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.R1/1 to Ex.R1/8, affidavit Ex.R2/A and documents Annexure R2/1 to Annexure R2/4.

4.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                          Admittedly, the complainant had purchased Atalntis insecticide from OP No.1 as is depicted in Annexure C1. The complainant has come with the plea that the insecticide allegedly sold by Op No.1 to him was of poor quality as due to its use his crop got damaged resulting into huge financial loss to him and in support of his he drew the attention of this Commission towards the Inspection Report Annexure C2.

6.                          On the other hand, the Ops have come with the plea that the insecticide was of superior quality and was found branded by the Public Analyst in reports Ex.R1/2 & Ex.R1/3. In support of their contentions they drew the attention of this Commission towards the opinion made in the report which is as under:

Description: Homogeneous granules, free from extraneous matter.              

                    In view of the result of the test/analysis of the sample with respect to protocol thereof, the same is declared as branded.

         

7.                          The complainant is mainly relied upon the Inspection Report Annexure C2 to prove the allegation qua poor quality of insecticide but this report reveals that the Inspecting Officer has not mentioned the killa number, khewat number or the description of the land, which they had inspected at the spot. Nor, they have mentioned the name of the person/Ops/representative of Ops in whose presence, the land was inspected. It also reveals that no prior notice before inspection was ever served to the Op before visiting at the spot, therefore, we have no hitch to say that this report is not helpful to the case of the complainant as there is sufficient evidence in the shape of Ex.R1/2 & Ex.R1/3 on the file to show that the insecticide in question was Homogeneous granules, free from extraneous matter and branded and it is not the case of the complainant that the said reports are fake being procured one, therefore, we have no other alternate but to believe on the same which remains un-rebutted.

8.                          Further, the onus of proof that there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Ops as the poor quality of seeds were sold to the complainant by Ops, lies on the complainant but in the present complaint the complainant has come with bare allegations only without leading any substantive evidence  and it is settled law that the complainant has to stand on his own legs to prove his case without taking any benefits from the weaknesses of the other party by leading concrete and authentic evidence.  

9.                          Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is no deficiency of service or any unfair trade practice, on part of the Ops, so as to make it liable in this matter to any extent. Accordingly, the present complaint is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits.  In the given circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of this Commission, for perusal of parties herein. Case file be consigned to record room, as per rules, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission.                                                            Dated:16.11.2023.  

 

                                                                                     

      (K.S.Nirania)                     (Harisha Mehta)           (Rajbir Singh)                             Member                               Member                                    President