THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 433 of 2013.
Date of Institution: 25.09.2013.
Date of Decision: -26.11.2015.
Vijay Singh son of Shri Ram Samsaroop Singh, resident of village & post office Khariya Bas, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- M/s Nava Bharat Fertilizers Limited, 1st Floor, Sai Gym, Haluwas Gate bear Bansilal Park, Loharu Road, Bhiwani.
- M/s Nava Bharat Fertilizers Limited, Corp. Office 7162134SR near main road, Hyderabad 500038 (Andhra Pradesh).
- Shri Krishan Kumar son of Shri Harnam, resident of village Dhani Shamian, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani (Agent).
…...OPs.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Shri Balraj Singh, Member
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member
Present:- Shri Vijay Beniwal, Advocate for complainant
Shri Naresh Sihag, Advocate for Ops.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he had purchased 9 liters Vinzyme-L (Plant Yield Enhancer) pesticide from OP no. 3 for a consideration of Rs. 3597/- vide bill no. 1601 dated 27.08.2013 for cultivating ancestral land comprised in different Khewat. The complainant alleged that the OP no. 3 assured that the pesticide so produced and manufactured by OP no. 2 was of good quality. After using the spray Gwar crop of the complainant burnt completely due to adverse effect of pesticide. The complainant alleged that he contacted OP no. 1 and requested to visit his field to know the actual position, but they refused to pay anything. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and humiliation. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such, he has to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.He
2. On appearance, Ops have filed written statement alleging therein that the OP no. 3 is only agent of Ops no. 1 & 2 and he has been falsely impleaded in this complaint without any cause of action and no such personal liability can be fastened upon OP no. 3. It is submitted that the pesticide manufactured by OP no. 1 is of best quality and several agricultural universities have issued I.S.O. Certificate. It is further submitted that the produced manufactured by OP no. 1 with the use of natural products to enrich and fertile the soil of the earth and the same is agriculturalists with best qualities and the OP no. 1 is in the filed of manufacture of organic fertilizer since last 11 years. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Annexure C1 to Annexure C7 alongwith supporting affidavit.
4. In reply thereto, the opposite parties have placed on record Annexure D-1 to Annexure D-27.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the complainant suffered loss due to the spray of Vinzyme-L pesticide which was purchased by the complainant from OP no. 3 who is agent of OP no. 1 & 2 who are the producer of the said pesticide. In support of his contention he relied upon the inspection report of Local Commissioner dated 07.10.2013. He referred the judgment of Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab referred in case of Bayer Cropscience Limited Vs. Surjit Singh and another 2011 (2) CLT Page 458.
7. Learned counsel for Opposite Parties reiterated the contents of his reply. He submitted that the pesticide in question, sold by the Ops was not of sub standard quality, but was of best quality. He submitted that the complainant has filed the false complaint to extort the money from the Ops. He argued that the Inspection Committee did not inform and call the Ops for the inspection of the field of the complainant. He further submitted that the said inspection report of Local Commissioner does not mention that the Vinzyme-L was of sub standard quality. In support of his contention he referred the judgment of Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab in case of Jaswinder Singh Vs. Punjab Pesticides and Seeds & another IV (2008) CPJ 444.
8. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record. Learned Counsel for the complainant, in support of his contention, relied upon the inspection report of Local Commissioner. We have carefully perused the said report. The relevant paras of the said report are produced below:-
4. “The team inspected the field thoroughly and found that crop stand (plant population) was normal but with stunted growth with less number of ponds. The team estimated the expected the average yield in the said field @ 2.5-3.0 quintal per hectare against the average yield of about 15-16 quintal per hectare of Guar Variety HG 365.
5. The team also visited the neighboring filed of Guar crop of Sh. Chander Bhan son of Sh. Digh Ram who did not spray Vinzyme-L in his field. This crop was in good condition and is expected to yield about 13-14 quintals per hectare.
6. The package of practices to be adopted in various crops to get good yield published by Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University Hisar has no recommendation of any growth hormone like Vinzyme-L in guar crop.
7. The team estimated about 80-85 per cent loss in the crop under complaint”.
9. Admittedly, the Ops were not informed nor called by the Local Commissioner at the time of the inspection of the field of the complainant. In Para No. 4, the team has estimated and expected the average yield of the guar crop in the field of the complainant. In Para No. 5, the team has mentioned that the neighboring field has expected good yield of guar crop, who did not spray Vinzyme-L in his field. It has been further mentioned in Para No. 6 of the said report that “Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University Hisar has no recommendation of any growth hormone like Vinzyme-L in guar crop”. It means that the spray of Vinzyme-L is not recommended by HAU, Hisar in guar crop for good yield. In Para 7 of the said report the team has estimated the loss 80 to 85 per cent in the crop. It has not mentioned by the said team that the said loss is directly attributed due to the spray of said Vinzyme-L, and the said Vinzyme-L was of inferior or sub standard quality.
10. The complainant had opportunity to produce the sealed bottle of said Vinzyme-L of the same lot from the Ops and get it tested. The complainant has not taken any step to get the test report or the analysis of the said Vinzyme-L from the approved laboratory as envisaged under Section 13 (1) (c ) of the Consumer Protection Act, to prove his contention that the said Vinzyme-L was of sub standard quality.
11. In view of the above discussion, it cannot be held that the alleged loss of crop of the complainant is due to the spray of Vinzyme-L in the field sold and manufactured by the Ops, as alleged by the complainant. Taking into account the totality of facts and the hardship cause to the complainant we think that the compensation of Rs. 10,000/- would be just and proper in the circumstances of the case. Accordingly, we have award a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant against the Ops. The amount of compensation shall be payable by the Ops proportionately i.e. 80 per cent by the OP no. 1 & 2 and 20 per cent by OP no. 3. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Dated:-26.11.2015.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Ansuya Bishnoi), (Balraj Singh),
Member. Member
