BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 233 of 2015
Date of Institution : 23.12.2015
Date of Decision : 28.2.2017
- Nishan Singh son of Sh. Hazara Singh
- Kahan Singh son of Sh. Hazara Singh
- Both residents of village Sant Nagar (Jeevan Nagar), Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.
……Complainants.
Versus.
- M/s Kissan Fertilizer & Supply Company, Bani Road, Sant Nagar (Distt. Sirsa) through its Prop./ Partner/ Manager/ Authorized person.
- E.I. Dupont India Private Limited, Regd. office- 7th Floor, Tower C, DLF Cyber Greens Sector-25A, DLF City, Phase-IIIrd, Gurgaon, Haryana- India, through its Managing Director/ Auth. Person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH.S.B.LOHIA …………………………..PRESIDENT
SH.RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……….MEMBER.
Present: Sh. D.S. Smagh, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. J.B.L. Garg, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. P.S. Chauhan, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
Case of the complainants, in brief is that they own 17 acres of agricultural land in village Sant Nagar (Jeevan Nagar), Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa. The complainants were in need of pesticide for 17 acres of land, hence complainant no.1 on behalf of complainant no.2 approached to the shop of op no.1 and purchased Picoxystrobin 22.52% w/w/SC (Galileo) bearing batch no.044 and IRVY batch No.H003 and both these pesticides were purchased on 30.9.2015 for total amount of Rs.17550/- vide bill No.16359 dated 30.09.2015 after every type of assurance given by op no.1. The complainants got sprayed the said pesticides on the crop of paddy in 17 acres of land. But after spraying the said pesticides, instead of getting benefit/ profit, the said pesticides destroyed the crop as duplicate pesticide was provided by op no.1. The complainant no.1 immediately approached op no.1 and told the above said fact but op no.1 stated that they cannot do anything in this regard and forcibly ousted from his shop. On 21.10.2015, the complainants moved an application to the Deputy Agriculture Director, Sirsa to inspect their fields and on 30.10.2015 the officials of the Agriculture Department, Rania on the instruction of Deputy Agriculture Officer vide letter No.5886/88 dated 23.10.2015 inspected the spot and submitted report regarding 50% to 60% loss to the complainant due to duplicate pesticide sold by ops to the complainants. In fact the loss of complainants is more than 80%. Thereafter, a letter bearing Sr. No.6270 dated 16.11.2015 was issued by the Deputy Agriculture Officer, Sirsa to the complainants regarding inspection of the destroyed crop. The complainants have suffered a loss of Rs.about 12 lacs. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed reply raising certain preliminary objections. On merits, it has been submitted that complainant no.1 purchased the pesticides in question from answering op for 9 acres of land and not for 17 acres of land. The answering op sold the pesticides in question to the complainant no.1 in the original packing properly sealed as received by it from the authorized distributor of company namely M/s Mehta Insecticides, 131, New Anaj Mandi, Sirsa. It has been further submitted that answering op has no knowledge and notice of alleged spot inspection of the field of complainant by the officers of the Agriculture Department, because no notice was ever given to the answering op. The alleged inspection report is not a legal, valid and scientific report, because no square and killa numbers have been mentioned in the same. In the alleged spot inspection report, it is mentioned that the entire field is infested with leave curling disease. In this regard, it is submitted that the said disease happens due to climatic conditions and not with the use of the pesticides. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
3. Opposite party no.2 filed reply and took certain preliminary objections. It has been submitted that it is evident from the complaint itself that complainant had used pesticide of other company as well with the pesticide of answering op. The effectiveness of any pesticide on a crop is based on various factors, particularly, in following the procedure carefully as mentioned in the manual/ instructions provided with the product. It is also pertinent to mention here that the contents of complaint do not bring forth material aspects of the matter i.e. date of sowing of the crops, date when the land got prepared, condition of the land and at what stage of the crop the pesticide was applied in the field by the complainant. The complainants failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that they have followed the correct and prescribed agricultural practices for cultivation of the crop. The complainants have used the pesticide without paying attention to the doses and instructions given in the leaflets attached with the pesticide. As per the instructions mentioned in the leaflet, Galileo is required to be used twice during the life cycle of crop and use rate for Galileo is 240 ml mixed with 200 liters of water per acre. It appears to be a case of insufficient use of pesticide to the tune of 60% as complainant has confirmed purchasing and using only 3 liters of Galileo, however to spray on 17 acres, complainant was required to use approximate 8 liters of Galileo. It has been further submitted that there is no compliance of mandatory provisions under Section 13 (1) (c) of the Act and complainants have not produced form J to prove the loss. With these averments, dismissal of complaint has been prayed for.
4. By way of evidence, complainants produced affidavit of Nishan Singh Ex.C1, affidavit of Kahan Singh Ex.C2, copy of bill Ex.C3, copy of application Ex.C4, copy of letter Ex.C5, copy of inspection report Ex.C6, copy of jamabandi for the year 2011-2012 Ex.C7. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit Ex.R1, copies of certificates Ex.R2, Ex.R3, copy of letter dated 3.1.2002 Ex.R4, affidavit Ex.R5, certified copy of resolution Ex.R6 and copy of leaflet Ex.R7.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. The complainants have failed to prove that the pesticides were of inferior quality and mis-branded. The complainants have placed on file inspection report of Agriculture Department, Sirsa Ex.C6. We carefully gone through the report of the officers of Agriculture department. It would also not be out of place to mention here that the officers of the agriculture department have also not mentioned the khasra and killa numbers of the land which was allegedly inspected by the officers of the agriculture department. From the said report, the identity of the land can not be established and such report does not carry any evidentiary value. Holding these views we have relied upon the observation of our Hon’ble Haryana State Commission in a case Narender Kumar Vs. M/s Arora Trading Company and other 2007(2) CLT 683 in which it was clearly observed by their Lordship that when the killa and khasra numbers of land which was inspected by the Agriculture Department officer had not been mentioned in the report, the report cannot be taken into account to support the stand of the complainant. As such no finding can be recorded in favour of the complainant. Moreover, the said report does not pin point any defect in the pesticides.
7. Further, as per letter of Director Agriculture Department dated 3.1.2002 (copy Ex.R4) issued to all the Deputy Director in the State it was directed by the Director Agriculture that inspection team should be consisting total four members, two officer of Agriculture Department, one representative from concerned agency and scientists from KGK/KVK/ HAU. In the inspection report, it is not mentioned that any notice was given to the representative of the concerned agency, so this report is not conclusive and the same is defective one. Further more, the complainants have failed to prove that they used the pesticide as per the instructions given in the leaflets and used the proper doses.
8. Thus, complainants have failed to prove their case and report of inspection team is not acceptable in the eyes of law. Accordingly the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:28.2.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Member. Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
