BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/209 of  19.3.2010

                                                Decided on:          5.5.2011

Amar Singh s/o Sh.Narata Ram r/o Village Isherheri, P.O. Mashigan, Tehsil & District Patiala.

                                                                             -----------Complainant

                                      Versus

1.                 M/s Kissan Khetibari Store, Old Bazar, Near Hari Engineering Works, Devigarh, District Patiala through its Proprietor.

2.                 New Chemi Industries Ltd., 33/ 3^rd Floor, Makers Chambers VI,220, Nariman Point, Bombay(Regd.Office) through its Managing Director.

                                                                             ----------Opposite parties.

                                      Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Sh.Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

Present:

For the complainant:     Sh.Kulwinder Singh , Advocate

For opposite party no.1:           Naveen Trehan, Advocate

For opposite party no.2:         Sh.B.S.Roharjagir,Advocate

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

                                      It is the grievance of the complainant that he had purchased the insecticides in the month of December 2009 from op no.1 to counter the disease of “Gulidanda” in respect  of the wheat crop sown by him in his four acres of land situated in the area of village Magar Sahib,Tehsil & District Patiala in November 2009,the description of the land having been given in para no.2 of the complaint. The insecticide was called “Sulfo Gold 75% W.G.”.Each box contained 13.50gm liquid insecticide worth Rs.900/- purchased vide cash memo no.761 dated 24.12.2009.

2.                                   The complainant used the said insecticides in his wheat crop as per the instructions but to the surprise of the complainant the entire wheat crop was damaged.

3.                                   It is further averred by the complainant that the ops had supplied spurious insecticides he being an illiterate an innocent person. The wheat crop did not give any yield and thus, the complainant suffered the loss @ Rs.40000/- per acre.

4.                                   The complainant informed op no.1 about the damages suffered by him because of the effect of the spurious insecticides and asked for the compensation but to no effect. He also got the ops served with a legal notice dated 3.3.2010. Accordingly he approached this Forum through the present complaint brought under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short the Act) seeking a compensation in a sum of Rs.2,65000/- as per the detail given in para no.12 of the complaint.

5.                                   On notice the ops appeared and filed their written versions separately.

6.                                   In the written statement filed by op no.1, it is averred that the complainant has not produced any record with regard to the land sown by him with the crop of wheat qua the land owned by him. It is however, admitted that the complainant had purchased three boxes of insecticides. It is denied if crop of the complainant had been damaged because of the spurious insecticides to have been supplied to him. The op supplied the insecticides as demanded by the complainant in a packed/sealed box. Op no.1 is the agent of op no.2 which is the manufacturer of the insecticides. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint going against it op no.1 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

7.                                   In the written statement filed by op no.2 it is denied if the complainant had sown the crop of wheat in November 2009 in his agricultural land measuring 15 bighas 19 biswas. The pesticide Sulfo Gold 75% W.G. is fully compatible for using on wheat crop for destroying the weeds like “Guli Danda”.It is denied if the complainant had used the insecticides in his fields on the crop of wheat as per the instructions. Similarly it is denied if any spurious insecticides were supplied to the complainant or that with the spray of Sulfo Gold 75% W.G any crop of the complainant was damaged. The op has been manufacturing the pesticides and insecticides for the last so many years and the quality of their product is as per standard approved by the Central Insecticides Board of the Govt. of India. Since the use of the product is beyond the control of the op they can not assume any responsibility other than uniform quality of the product in sealed original packing. The possibility of the damage to the crop can not be ruled out due to over irrigation or some other factors like use of mixture of pesticides etc. The complainant has not suffered any loss. The complaint is said to be false and it is prayed that the same be dismissed with costs of Rs.20000/- the same having been filed to malign the reputation of the op.

8.                                   To substantiate the allegations made in the complaint, the learned counsel for the complainant produced in evidence, Ex.C1 the sworn affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents, Exs.C2 to C13 and closed the evidence of the complainant.

9.                                   On behalf of op no.1, its learned counsel produced in evidence the sworn affidavits,Ex.R1 of Jagdev Singh, Prop. of op no.1,Ex.R17 affidavit of Gurdev Singh alongwith documents Exs.R2 to R10 and closed the evidence.

10.                                 On behalf of op no.2, its learned counsel produced in evidence the sworn affidavit, Ex.R11 of Mr.S.S.Saini alongwith documents,Exs.R12 to R16 and closed the evidence.

11.                                 The parties filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel of the parties and gone through the evidence/record on the file.

12.                                 Ex.C9 is the cash memo dated 24.12.2009 to have been issued by op no.1 to the complainant regarding the sale of three boxes of Sulfo Gold 75% W.G. for Rs.900/-, each packet having contained13.5gm, which fact is also not denied by op no.1. Any amount of evidence to have been led by the complainant  consisting of the report,Ex.C4  written by Agricultural Development Officer(PP),Patiala to Chief Agricultural Officer, Patiala with regard to his having made an inspection regarding the land of the complainant Amar Singh and 75% crop of the wheat having been found to have been destroyed, which appeared to be the impact of some spray but without any certainty that the same had been destroyed because of the impact of the insecticides, can not be of any avail to the complainant.

13.                                 On the other hand the ops have produced in evidence,Ex.R10, the copy of the  report received from  the Sr.Analyst Insecticide Testing Lab.,Amritsar in respect of sample of Sulfosulfuron 75% W.G. of batch no.NC1-001 having date of manufacture as 1.11.2008 and date of expiry as 31.10.2010 taken from the premises of op no.1 on 2.3.2010 as would appear from,Ex.R9, the copy of the intimation sent to op no.1 regarding the sample of the aforesaid insecticide to have taken by the Insecticide Inspector on 2.3.2010.Ex.R10 is the report of Senior Analyst Insecticide Testing Lab.Amritsar that “ the sample conforms to IS specifications in respect of its percent active ingredient content”.

14.                                 No body can say as to with what insecticide, the complainant had sprayed his crop of the wheat. Therefore, the ops were very much justified in having produced in evidence the report of the Sr. Analyst Insecticide Testing Laboratory,Amritsar with regard to the contents of the vary product sold by op no.1 to the complainant. Batch No.NC1/001 of the product sold by op no.1 to the complainant as mentioned in the cash memo,Ex.C9 dated 24.12.2009 finds match with the batch no. qua the date of manufacture and date of the expiry given in the report of the Insecticide Analyst ,Ex.R10.

15.                                  Once a product is sold by a dealer in the packed/sealed form, he is not responsible for the quality of the same, but he can prove the quality of the same by obtaining a report of the competent authority by way of providing the sample of the product manufactured in the same batch. Therefore, in the light of the evidence led by the ops that the product i.e. the Sulfosulfuron 75% W.G. pertaining to batch no.NC1-001 date of manufacturing being 1.11.2008 and date of expiry being 31.10.2010, the sample conformed to IS specifications in respect of its percent active ingredient content, we are of the confirmed considered view that the ops could not be blamed for any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice having sold any spurious insecticide to the complainant. There may be a number of factors in the crop of the complainant having not given the yield and it will not be right to  say that it was because of the effect of the insecticide used by the complainant on the crop of wheat being spurious. We do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed.

Pronounced.

Dated:5.5.2011

                             Neelam Gupta      Amarjit Singh Dhindsa    D.R.Arora

                             Member                Member                            President