BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 267 of 2016
Date of Institution : 3.10.2016
Date of Decision : 5.9.2017.
Vazir Singh son of Sh. Arjun Singh, resident of village Abholi, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- M/s Luxmi Pesticides, Sirsa Road village Ottu, Distt. Sirsa, through its Prop/ partner/ Manager Krishan Singh.
- Advance Crop Care (India) Pvt. Ltd, Plot No.20, 21, 24, 25 Industrial Area Rangwasa Road, Rau, Indore through its Managing Director/ Prop/ partner/ Auth. Person.
- Shivendra Agro Solutions, B 17/3 Garden Estate, Link Road Goregaon (West) Mumbai- 400062 through its Managing Director/ Partner/ Auth. Person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SMT. RAJNI GOYAT ………………… MEMBER
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE …… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. A.S. Kaura, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. P.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant is an agriculturist. On 28.6.2016, the complainant alongwith Ranvir Singh son of Gurmail Singh, resident of village Abholi and Ram Lal son of Het Ram, resident of village Sultanpur visited the shop of op no.1 and asked him to give pesticide for his three acre agricultural land and had purchased pesticide Monol and Adoxam for the amount of Rs.1400/-. Thereafter, on 5.7.2016 he purchased pesticide of Rs.575/-, on 10.7.2016 purchased pesticide of Rs.770/-, on 24.7.2016 purchased pesticide for Rs.750/-, on 21.8.2016 purchased pesticide for Rs.760/-, on 26.8.2016 purchased pesticide for Rs.550/- and on 1.9.2016 he purchased pesticide for Rs.1330/- of the above said companies totaling Rs.6135/-. When the complainant demanded the bill of said pesticides, then op no.1 gave a rough bill to the complainant and asked that it is just like a original bill and if there will be any problem, then he will be liable for the same and also assured about good result of the pesticides. That the complainant used the said pesticides in his three acres of land as per directions of the op but the crop of the complainant did not gain height as well as did not give any fruit as the whole crop of the complainant burnt. It is further averred that then complainant came to know that op no.1 had given him a duplicate pesticide. The complainant alongwith Ranvir Singh and Ram Lal and other respectable of village immediately met with op no.1 and told him about his loss but the op no.1 did not listen the complainant and stated that he cannot do anything. That thereafter complainant filed a complaint to the Agricultural Director, Sirsa for the inspection of his filed but they did not visit the fields of complainant till today. That due to duplicate pesticide of the ops, the complainant has suffered 80% loss of his crop which comes to about Rs.1,40,000/-. The complainant had also spent an amount of Rs.20,000/- for sowing crop and also suffered mental pain, agony and harassment due to negligent act and deficiency in service on the part of ops. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that good crop is not only depend upon pesticides but also on the seed quality, climate condition, type of soil, water irrigation facilities and supply of nutrients and effective use of fertilizer etc. The pesticide by itself without other requirement cannot give a good crop. The complaint is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of necessary party because op no.3 has been impleaded unnecessarily in this complaint as the pesticide mentioned in the complaint is neither manufactured nor sold by op no.3 in any manner. It is further submitted that complainant has purchased pesticide of Monol and Adoxam from opposite party no.1 on credit basis and even till today he has not made the payment to op no.1. It is further submitted that op no.1 has purchased above pesticides from op no.2 and the aforesaid pesticides have been approved by the Govt. for AGMARK approved by M.P. Pollution Board and a certificate in this regard has been issued by the Unique Analytical and Biochemicals, Indore. The op no.1 has sold the above said pesticides to the complainant in a packed condition which was received by it from op no.2. It is further submitted that complainant might not have used the pesticide which he has purchased from op no.1 and used some other pesticides and in that condition the ops are not liable for any alleged lapse. Even the complainant has failed to prove any conclusion proof that he had actually used the pesticides in his fields which was purchased from the op. No conclusive evidence has been produced by the complainant to attribute the failure of the pesticides. The fields of the complainant was inspected by Halqa Patwari and he has given his report dated 18.10.2016 to the effect that Dhaan crop of the complainant is standing in a good quality. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
3. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1/A, affidavit of Kashmir Singh Ex.C2/B, affidavit of Ranvir Singh Ex.C3/C, rough bills Ex.C4 to Ex Ex.C9 and photographs Ex.C10 to Ex.C12 and postal receipts Ex. C13 to Ex.C15. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit Ex.R1, copy of licence Ex.R2, copy of report Ex.R3, affidavit of Nichhatar Singh Ex.R4, copies of certificates of analysis Ex.R5 to Ex.R7 and affidavit of Amarjit Singh Ex.R8.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. The perusal of evidence of the complainant reveal that complainant has placed on file his affidavit Ex.C1/A in which he has reiterated all the contents mentioned in his complaint and he has further relied upon the affidavit of Kashmir Singh Ex.C2/B who has tried to support the version of complainant. Similarly, complainant has further relied upon the affidavit of Ranvir Singh Ex.C3/C who has also tried to support the case of the complainant. The perusal of complaint reveal that the complainant has not specifically mentioned the khasra numbers of three acres of agricultural land which was allegedly owned by him, nor he has placed on record any copy of jamabandi as well as the copy of khasra girdawari in support of his claim that he had cultivated the paddy crop in the land in question. The complainant has only placed on record three photographs Ex.C10 to Ex.C12, showing standing crop but from these photographs, it cannot be presumed that land belongs to the complainant or it is the same land where the complainant has used the pesticides which was purchased by the complainant from op no.1 vide alleged bills Ex.C4 to Ex.C9.
6. On the other hand, in order to defend the complaint of the complainant, the ops through proprietor of op no.1 has furnished affidavit Ex.R1 in which he has reiterated all the contents made in the written statement. He has also proved on record Ex.R3 application which was moved by op no.1 to the concerned Tehsildar to pass order to the Halqa Patwari to make report and Halqa Patwari after visiting at the spot gave his report that crop standing is ok rather the Halqa Patwari has also recorded the Khasra numbers of the complainant’s land in his report Ex.R3. The opposite parties have furnished affidavit of Nichhatar Singh as Ex.R4 who has also deposed in support of opposite parties.
7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant has conceded that complainant has not placed on record any report of the expert qua the damage to the crop of the complainant, nor he ever made any application to this Forum for the appointment of any expert nor the complainant had ever moved any application to get the sample of the pesticides tested from approved laboratory, nor the complainant has placed on record any application moved to the agricultural department regarding on spot survey qua the standing crop of the complainant. So, it appears from the record that complainant has failed to prove his case by leading cogent and convincing evidence.
8. In view of our above discussion, we are of the considered view that complaint is devoid of any merit and same is hereby dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own 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. President,
Dated:5.9.2017. Member Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
