Haryana

Ambala

CC/313/2012

RAJ KUMAR S/O SH SATPAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S MAHAVIR BEEJ BHANDAR, - Opp.Party(s)

KIRAN PAL

20 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 313 of 2012

                                                          Date of Institution         : 26.11.2012

                                                          Date of decision             : 20.01.2017

          Raj Kumar son of Sh. Satpal, resident of Village Bihta, Tehsil Barara,     District Ambala.

……. Complainant.

 

1.       M/s Mahavir Beej Bhandar, Saha Chowk, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala                   through its proprietor.

2.       Crop Chemicals India Ltd; Kotkapura (Punjab) through its manager/M.D.  

 

 ….…. Respondents.

 

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER                             

 

Present:       Sh. Kiran Pal Chauhan, counsel for the complainant.

                   Sh. R.D. Dhiman, counsel for OP No. 1.            

                   OP No. 2 already exparte v.o.d. 10.04.2013

 

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant has sown radish crop in his 1.5 acre land as per required specification and to save the crops, the complainant has visited OP No. 1 who suggested to spray Nagraj-505 and the complainant purchased the said pesticide/medicine i.e. Nagraj 505 1-1/2lier on 04.10.2012 vide bill no. 5405 of Rs. 260/- and at that time the OP assured the complainant that if the complainant will spray the same, on the crop of radish, the SUNDI disease will be totally disposed off but after spray on the radish crop, the crop of the complainant will be totally damages due to the inferior quality of the said pesticide/medicine. Thereafter the complainant has complaint the matter to the OP No.1 and OP NO. 1 assured the complainant that he will inform the OP NO. 2 regarding the same but neither the Ops nor their person come to the complainant in this regard and ultimately, the complainant moved an application regarding the above said matter to the SDO (Agriculture) and the official of the above office has visited the field of the complainant on 10.10.2012 and prepared the report. Further submitted that the complainant had sown the radish crops inhis fields after obtaining a loan of Rs. 25,000/- and the radish crop wile be totally damages due to the inferior quality of insecticides/pesticides which was purchased by the complainant from the OP NO. 1 and the same was manufactured by the OP No. 2. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, Op No. 2 appeared and filed written statement submitting that the present complaint is not maintainable, no locus standi and false and frivolous and it is admitted fact that the complainant purchased said pesticide vide bill No. 5405 dated 04.10.2012 the detail of pesticide is described on the bill. Further submitted that OP No. 1 has never suggested the complainant to purchase the said pesticide and carry out a spray of said pesticide over the crops of radish and it is pertinent to mention here that the said medicine was sold to the complainant his demand. Further submitted that the radish crops itself is a Alkhlic/ACID nature thus being the crops of radish does not allow any insects to effect the growth, more, so it is obvious that the present complaint has been filed on the false and frivolous grounds.

                   On the other hand, OP No. 2 not bothered to appeared despite issuance of notice as such he was proceeded against exprte v.o.d.10.04.2013.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X along with documents as annexure C-1 to C-8 and close his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the OP No. 1 has tendered affidavit as Annexure R-X alongwith documents as Annexure R-1 to R-3 and close his evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file. The complainant had taken the plea in the complaint that he having 2 acre land and sown the radish crop in these 1.5 acre land as per required specification and OP No. 1 has suggest to spray Nagraj-505 as per the advised of OP NO. 1 complainant purchased the said pesticides from OP No. 1 and he sprayed in the field of radish crops by mixing the water as per instruction of the OP No. 2 and he sprayed accordingly but the crop of the complainant has been totally damaged due to inferior quality of the said pesticides and he moved an application to the SDO Agriculture department and the official of the agriculture department visited on the spot and they give the report Annexure C-3  in which the official off the agriculture department has given the brief report as under :-

1.                The farmer has not taken neither any advised from Officer of the Horticulture Department nor from the scientist of the Department of Krishi Vighan Kander. Although he has sprayed the pesticides on the advised of the dealer. The officer of the Horticulture Department or Officer of any Agriculture University has not advised to spray in the radish field. Inspection Committee, after seeing the crop of radish further observed that unnecessary/excess or poisonous medicine has been used in the field because of which leaves of the radish gave adverse effect i.e. phytotixic effect.

                   Even then the complainant has not moved any application under section 13(1)(c) of C.P. Act which is relevant in present case which says “Where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which con not be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the analysis or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect and to report its findings thereon to the District Forum within a period of  forty-five days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the District Forum

5.                In view of above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the report submitted by District Horticulture, Ambala (Annexure C-2) is not helpful to the case of complainant since the report depicts that the complainant has not sprayed the pesticides as per scheduled/ prescribed norms as well as he has not consulted any expert person of Agriculture/Horticulture Department and because of which the crop of radish could not get yields up to the mark. Hence, the complainant miserably failed to prove his case having no merits and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be sent of parties concerned as per rule. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 Announced on :20.01.2017          

                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                               (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

                                                                                    Sd/-

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member