AM Sons laboratories pvt limited M/s Niranjan Dass Sanjiv Kumar
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. Sh S.M.S Mahil 2. Sh Sarat Chanderl
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.17/07.02.2007 Complaint No.41/25.03.2008 Decided on : 15.04.2008 Sajjan Singh S/o Sh.Bhajan Singh S/o Sh.Harnam Singh, resident of Village Bachhoana, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.M/s Naranjan Dass Sanjeev Kumar (Madan Lal beej wale), Gole Market, Budhlada, District Mansa through its proprietor/partner. 2.Amsons Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., (Agro Chemical Division), 208-209 Amber Tower, Azadpur Commercial Complex, Azadpur, Delhi 110 033 ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.Varinder Singla, counsel for the complainant. Sh.Mukesh Kumar, counsel for OP No.1. OP No.2 exparte. Before: Sh.S.M.S.Mahil, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. ORDER: Sajjan Singh (hereinafter called as the complainant) has filed the present complaint against M/s Naranjan Dass Sanjeev Kumar at Budhlada, as well as Amsons Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Azadpur, Delhi (hereinafter called as the opposite parties No.1 & 2, respectively) for seeking refund of Rs.1,500/- as price of the weedicide and Rs.1,80,000/- as compensation regarding mental harassment, as well as monetary loss. Contd........2 : 2 : Admitted facts of this complaint are that the complainant is an agriculturist and he had purchased weedicide known as AMWAR 75 WG4 unit, along with Amgrip from OP No.1 vide bill No.1242 dated 17.12.2006 for Rs.1,500/- for the purpose of its spray upon his wheat crop sown in 4 acres of land for elimination of gullidanda. It is alleged that after a few days of spray, the wheat crop started turning pale and an intimation in this regard was given to OP No.1 immediately. OP No.1 did not care to visit the spot, nor he tried to redress the grievance of the complainant. The complainant thereafter had moved an application dated 15.01.2007 to Agriculture Officer, Budhlada upon which the officers of the Agriculture Department visited the spot on 19.01.2007 and submitted the report dated 19.01.2007 It is alleged that on account of the defective and inferior quality of the weedicide supplied by OP No.1 the wheat crop of the complainant in 4 acres had been destroyed completely causing a loss of Rs.1,10,000/- to the complainant as in normal course 25 quintals wheat per acre worth Rs.80,000/- was to be reaped by the complainant. In addition, wheat chaff worth Rs.7,500/- per acre was to be taken by the complainant. Thus the complainant had suffered mental harassment also in addition to the monetary loss. Hence this complaint. OP No.2 did not appear despite service and, as such, was proceeded against exparte. OP No.1 in its written version did not dispute the sale of the weedicide to the complainant, but denied that there was any deficiency in service by this opposite party towards the complainant. According to this opposite party, the complainant has not suffered any loss, as alleged. Rather, according to this opposite party, the complainant had purchased the Contd........3 : 3 : weedicide on credit and when this opposite party demanded the money from him, he refused to pay the same and threatened to falsely implicate him . Thus, the complaint is stated to be false. Further, according to this opposite party, the weedicide purchased by him was in sealed packets /containers and he sells the same in the sealed condition. Therefore, he was not in any way liable to the complainant. A prayer for dismissal of the complaint was accordingly made. Both the parties have led their respective evidence in the shape of affidavits and documents. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinized the entire evidence placed on record. From the written version filed by OP No.1, it is abundantly clear that the sale of the weedicide spray by this opposite party to the complainant vide bill, copy of which is exhibit C-3, has not been disputed. The contention of the opposite party is that the weedicide was purchased on credit by the complainant and when he demanded the money, false complaint was lodged against him which is meaningless. The grievance of the complainant is to be considered on merits on the basis of the facts placed on record by him. The allegation of the complainant that his wheat crop has turned pale after spray finds corroboration from his affidavit, as well as application dated 15.01.2007, copy of which is Exhibit C-4, moved by him to the Agriculture Officer, Budhlada and the report dated 24.01.2007, copy of which is Exhibit C-5 given by Agriculture Development Officer, Budhlada to the complainant. Exhibit C-6 to C-9, the photographs of the damaged wheat crop, also lends corroboration to this claim. The controversy which now requires to be resolved is as Contd........4 : 4 : to whether the weedicide purchased by the complainant from OP No.1 does not conform to the standards laid down for such weedicide and the damage to the wheat crop has occurred solely on account of spray of the said weedicide. No doubt, the Agriculture Development Officer in his report dated 24.01.2007, copy of which is Exhibit C-5, had observed that on visual inspection of the wheat crop, he was of the view that chlorophyll contents (green pigment) had been damaged due to spray, yet the report is silent if the Agriculture Development Officer was having any knowledge of the chemical formation of the weedicide to the effect of such spray. He had not got any laboratory test of the wheat crop conducted to find out if the damage to the crop had occurred only on account of the spray and not due to other factors. In Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. Versus Kopolu Sambasiva Rao & Others, 2006(1) CPC 36 (NC) , the Hon'ble National Commission had observed that where no sample was analysed according to the procedure prescribed under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act, the order holding the insecticide of inferior quality could not be sustained. In M/s Amarjit Singh and Company Versus Shiv Charan, 2005(2) CPC 620 (Haryana) damage to the flowers of Arhar was claimed on account of insecticide as no leaves and flowers of the crop were left except the stents in the fields. The District Forum had directed the opposite party to pay Rs.60,000/- as compensation without examination and laboratory test of the insecticide, as desired by Section 13(1)(c) of the Act. It was observed by the Hon'ble State Commission that to reach at a conclusion that the goods were defective, without proper analysis or test of the goods, District Forum committed an error by accepting the complaint holding the opposite party liable for deficiency in service. The order under Contd........5 : 5 : appeal was accordingly set-aside. In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncements, we are of the considered opinion that in the present case also in the absence of any laboratory test or chemical analysis of the wheat crop of the complainant, it will not be just to hold that the weedicide supplied by OP No.1 to the complainant did not conform to the specifications laid down in that regard. There may be a number of other reasons also for damage to the crop of the complainant and the complainant was required to lead evidence to eliminate the possibility of those reasons also. No evidence has been led by the complainant in that regard. As such, any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant thus cannot be established. As a consequence of the foregoing reasons, we are constrained to dismiss the complaint with the observation that the complainant may avail any other remedy available to him through the civil court or in accordance with law. Parties shall bear their own costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charges under the rules and file be arranged, indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 15.04.2008 Sarat Chander, S.M.S.Mahil, Member. President.
