Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 495.
Instituted on : 24.08.2017.
Decided on : 02.03.2020.
Satish Kumar age 47 years, s/o Sh. Dharampal, R/o village-Karontha(70), Tehsil & District-Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Anu Products Ltd. Through it manufacturer, Mfd. & Packed at Factory Address-Tigaon Road, Faridabad-121002, Haryana, License No.5/73/PPH, Customer Care No.92111-36678.
- Jai Laxmi Industries-Vadodara Gujarat, India, Survey No.10/2, Village Vav, PO: Dhanasar, Baska-Rameshwar Road, Tal. Halol, Panchamahl, Gujarat-389350.
- M/s Mahavir Agro Sales, Booth no.51-52(Near-130No.) Nai Anaaj Mandi, Rohtak, Haryana.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.M.K.Vaid, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Ajay Gandhi, Advocate for opposite party No.1 & 3.
Sh.Vikram Khattar, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant grown crop of muskmelon in his field/land in the prescribed time period for the muskmelon growing and had to spent about Rs.40000/- per acre in form of expenses of cultivating of land, seeds, irrigation tube well and spray. That complainant purchased packet of SAFAL(a product of protective and curative Fungicide), Kango(Lambda Cyhalothrin 4.9% C.S) and 500ML B-STAR (Bio Plant Promoter) from opposite party No.3, who is authorized dealer of opposite party No.1 & 2 and on dated 25.03.2017 complainant sprayed the said insecticide for the control of minor insects in his muskmelon crop according to the direction specified on the above said Insecticide label/leaflet and after the seven or eight days, complainant seen negative effect of above mentioned Insecticide on his muskmelon crop and after 15 days the entire crop of said one acre was completely damaged. Complainant met with the officials of opposite party and told them about the harmful effect of use of above said insecticide and also requested them to compensate the damages of one acre of muskmelon crop and they asked the complainant to contact the agriculture officer. Complainant contacted the Deputy Director Agriculture, Rothak and the said committee visited the fields of complainant and inspected the muskmelon crop and as per the damage report 100% of the crop was destroyed due to the use of above said insecticide. As per the investigation, it revealed that the above said insecticide was not suitable for the crop of muskmelon. That complainant requested the opposite parties many times to compensate him but they flatly refused for the same. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the compensation of Rs.250000/- and also to pay Rs.100000/- on account of mental tension, harassment and Rs.15000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. On notice, the opposite parties appeared and opposite party No.2 filed its written statement submitting therein that complainant has not placed any record of jamabandi of land by which it could have concluded that complainant was possessing crop of Muskmelon. The complainant has not placed the record of Rs.40000/- per acre in form of expenses of cultivating of land, seeds, irrigation tube well and spray. As per bill dated 20.03.2017 filed by complainant, two insecticides Be-Star and Kongo were manufactured by answering respondent and number of packets sold in the market every year and no complaint regarding its quality and bad effect was received. The alleged insecticide was not properly sprayed or there can be other reason for damages. The complainant has not complied with mandatory provision of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, as the insecticide was not tested in any laboratory to prove their Sub Standard quality. The complainant has not placed any test report of appropriate laboratory which could have proved that said insecticides were substandard. The report of District Agricultural Officer Rohtak dated 05.05.2017 was suspicious and unilateral documents because no agent of answering respondent was invited or present at the time of alleged inspection of crop of Muskmelon. The complainant had not suffered any financial loss as there was no defect in insecticide. It is incorrect that the said insecticide was not suitable for crop of muskmelon. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. Ld. counsel for opposite party No.1 & 3 made a statement on dated 19.07.2018 that the reply already filed on behalf of opposite party No.2 be also read on behalf of opposite party No.1 & 3.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and also tendered documents Ex.C13 to Ex.C33 in additional evidence and closed his evidence on dated 20.11.2019. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, document Ex.R2/1 and has closed his evidence on 13.03.2019. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.1 & 3 in their evidence has stated that affidavit already filed on behalf of opposite party No.2 be also read on their behalf and tendered documents Ex.RW1/1 to Ex.RW1/3 and closed his evidence on dated 14.05.2019.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case, inspection report dated 05.05.2017 has been issued by the District Horticulture Officer, Rohtak, as per letter No.84 dated 09.05.2017 issued by the department to the complainant. As per this report, the muskmelon crop of the complainant has been destroyed upto 80-85% and he further submitted that the quality of the insecticide does not come under the purview of District Horticulture Officer and the same is under the control of Deputy Director Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Department, Rohtak. The complaint was also made before the CM Window by the complainant and after due verification an investigation report has been submitted by the Deputy Director Horticulture, Rohtak dated 11.07.2017 regarding the complaint made by the complainant before the CM window. A bare perusal of this report Ex.C18 itself shows that a detailed investigation has been conducted by the Deputy Director Horticulture. As per this report the complainant had purchased insecticides and fungicides from the opposite party No.3 and after spraying the same in his field/land, when he suffered damages in his crops, then he had not approached in the department of horticulture or before the agriculture department regarding the solution but he approached the shopkeeper of the insecticides i.e. respondent no.3. After receiving the complaint, the Deputy Director Horticulture, Rohtak found that the insecticides & fungicide sold by the respondent are not recommended by Ch. Charan Singh Haryana Agriculture University for vine plants. He further submitted that at this stage, inspection of the fields of the complainant could not be conducted because the crops have already been harvested. He further submitted that after receiving the information on dated 09.05.2017 a detailed report has been submitted by the District Horticulture officer and in that report, it has been found that complainant has suffered a loss of 80-85% in his fields. He further submitted that after due verification, it was found that Mahavir Agro, Rohtak has wrongly sold the insecticide to the farmer because the same was not legally been recommended by the department and complainant has suffered loss in his crop. Hence from the report Ex.C17 & Ex.C18 of Horticulture Department , Rohtak, it is itself proved that the loss has been suffered to the farmer due to selling of non-recommended medicines/insecticides by the opposite party No.3 and the complainant suffered loss in one acre of land upto 80-85%. Hence the opposite party No.3 i.e. Mahavir Agro is solely liable to compensate the complainant as he has sold the alleged insecticides & fungicides to the complainant without any recommendation of the same for vine plants.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party no.3 to pay the amount of Rs.75000/- per acre as compensation to the complainant. As per the complainant he has suffered loss in one acre of land. As such opposite party No.3 is hereby directed to pay Rs.75000/-(Rupees seventy five thousand only) as compensation on account of loss of crops alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 24.08.2017 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
02.03.2020. ................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
……………………………….
Tripti Pannu, Member.
