Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/27/2014

Rachetty Venkatesulu, S/o. Late R. Munaswamy - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Pasuparthy and Co., - Opp.Party(s)

K. Subramanyam

26 Jun 2015

ORDER

                                                                                                                                                      Filing Date:-16-06-2014                                                                                                                                                                                      Order Date: -26-06-2015.

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

PRESENT: - SRI.M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT.

                                                                                     SMT.T.ANITHA, MEMBER

           FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN.

C.C.No.27/2014

Between

 Rachetly.Venkatesulu,

S/o.Late R.Munaswamy

Ramakrishnapuram Village,

Penumuru Post & Mandal,

Chittoor District.

                                                                                                         …. Complainant

And

i) M/s. Pasuparthy & Co

Dealers in Fertilizers, Pesticides and Cement,

No.11-2-143K, Old TTD Office Road,

Tirupati, Chittoor District.

 

ii) M/s. Nagarjuna Agrichem Ltd.,

Ethakota, Rajamundry,

East Godavari Dist. - 533101, A.P.

 

iii) Customer Care Officer,

Coramandal International Ltd.,

Coramandal House,

1-2-10, Sardhar Patel Road,

Secunderabad-500003, A.P.

                                                                                                     …. Opposite parties

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 12.06.2015 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and written arguments of the complainant and opposite parties and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri.K.Subramanyam, counsel for the complainant, Sri.S.M.Jhan, counsel for the opposite party No.1 & 3, Sri.B.Narahari Reddy, counsel for the opposite party No.2 and having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           This complaint is filed under Sections 12 - of Consumer Protection Act 1986, complaining the deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties, for supplying the substandard quality of pesticides and fungicides, which results the damage to the crop cultivated by the complainant.

           2. The brief facts of the case are: The complainant who is an agriculturist raised plants of Chrysanthemum (Kasturi Chamanti) flowers in one acre of his land and he used to supply the flowers to the flower merchants. In order to get the good yield of crop he approached the opposite party no.1 shop who is the dealer of pesticides and fertilizers and with the advise of the opposite party no.1, he purchased the profex insecticide which is manufactured by opposite party no.1 and also Kapeni fungicide which is manufactured by opposite party no.3 by paying a sum of Rs.325/- on 04.02.2014. Accordingly he sprayed those pesticides to the crop of the flowers to get good yield. Prior to the sprinkling pesticides and fungicides by farmer the flowers were blooming, but in the next day when he went to the fields to examine the condition of the plants, he noticed that entire plants were dried and damaged. Hence he sustained loss of the crops of sum of Rs.2,00,000 to 3,00,000/-. The complainant further submits that in order to ascertain the reason for the damage of the crop he approached the agricultural officer and get the soil tested. Accordingly they gave report on 23.02.2014 as the soil is fit for cultivation. Again the complainant approached Horticulture officer, and obtained a report on 08.02.2014 with a finding that only by applying the above pesticides and fungicides the crop was damaged. Hence he gave a legal notice to the opposite parties, that due to the supply of substandard quality of pesticides and fungicides only the damage was occurred, hence he called upon them for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on 10.02.2014, same was acknowledged by them. The opposite parties 1&2 gave reply with false allegations to escape from the liability. Hence the complainant constrained the file this complaint by praying this Forum to direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.50,000 which was invested for the cultivation of the crop and a sum of Rs.25,000/- which was paid for labour and for Rs.325/- for purchasing the pesticides and fungicides and  for Rs.2,00,000/- for the compensation for the loss sustained by him for mental agony and deficiency of service and Rs.5,000/- towards costs.

           3.  The opposite parties 1 to 3 came in to appearance and filed their written versions separately. The opposite party no.1 who is a dealer of the fertilizers and the pesticides filed his written version by denying the allegations made in the complaint except the sale of pesticides for Rs.325/- to the complainant and further contended that the complainant approached them on 04.02.2014 and purchased the pesticides and they never gave any instructions to him to purchase above mentioned pesticides and also contends that they are not having any knowledge for what purpose he  intends to use the pesticides  for the cultivation of which crop and also contended that their  obligation was to supply the product which has been demanded by the customer and also they are not having any interest to gave an advertisement for selling the product as they are only the dealers and they are not manufacturers. They supplied the product with sealed container to the complainant and the process which the complainant has followed for using the pesticides is not known to them.  If the crop of the complainant was attacked by any pest or disease he ought to have consult any agricultural officer or any horticulture officer, but in this case he failed to take proper advice and unnecessarily throwed the blame on them. Hence there is no deficiency on part of them because they are only the dealers of the pesticides. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

           4.   The opposite Party no.2 filed their written version stated that after receipt of the legal notice on 10.02.2014 they issued suitable reply on 10.03.2014 to the counsel for the complainant. But the same was returned as unserved and contended that NACL is a part of renowned Nagarjuna Group and is an ISO 9001 (for quality sub standards) ISO 4001 for environment management but and OHSAS 8001 (for healthy and safety certified company). It manufactures comprehensive range of agro chemicals, maintains technical formulations and custom manufactured fine chemicals and the manufactured products are international quality sub standards and specifications. Various top multinational agro chemical office in the world have included NACL as they are business partners and  meets their international standards on safety, health and environment. It has a long standing of above two decades and is one of the premier companies in the industry. The opposite party further contended that there may be several reasons for the failure of the crop such an un favourable chemical conditions, not following the written instructions and the directions of user manual which was mentioned on the label of the container on the pesticides or due to any other extraneous circumstances which may have caused a alleged loss of the complainant. But in this particular case the opposite parties has  not received any complaint from any other  users who used the above pesticides which is being used all over the India and also stated that the complainant has been negligent as he has not followed the instructions and directions of the leaf let and making bald  allegations against the opposite party with an ulterior motive to get wrongful gain and also submits that profex pesticide is manufactured by this opposite party is recommended for use to cotton and chilies and  not recommend to use to for Kasturi Chamanti. Hence there is no defect in the product of this opposite party as they are not recommended the complainant to use the same to his crop. Hence there is no deficiency of service on part of them. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed against them.

           5.   The opposite party No.3 came into appearance and filed their written version by contending that their company is a reputed company and manufactures the various types of products of fertilizers and pesticides and fungicides etc. by following the standard and statutory requirements as applicable under FCO and insecticides Act and also by conducting required quality tests and properly packed with label. As per the statutory requirements on the said label the entire process of manufacturing of preparation of the product and the said label provides required information about the usage of particular insecticides/fungicides. So the farmer has to follow the instructions which were printed on the label. The opposite party further contended that they supplied pesticides in a sealed container to the dealer i.e. opposite party no.1 and the dealer sold the same to the complainant but whether the complainant followed the instructions in the label are not known to the  this opposite party.  Even though the Horti Culture Officer issued the letter dated 08.02.2014 that the entire crop of the complainant was damaged due to sprinkling of the above alleged pesticides but  no where in the letter stated that the complainant followed  the standard  instructions in the label of the tin. This opposite party further contended that they sold the same product fungicides to so many customers, but they never come across any complaint or damage to any crop regarding usage of the product which was alleged by the complainant except the above complaint.  The opposite party further contended that the said Kapeni fungicides which were purchased by the complainant is not recommended for usage for the Chamanti flowers. Because said usage to the crop is purely at the risk of the complainant, and it is not suggestible to mix the Kapeni fungicides with any other insecticides and herbicides. But as per the allegations of the complainant reveals that he has sprinkled the same along with insecticides profex, which is not at all suggestible.  It clearly indicates that the complainant has not obtained any proper advice of any agriculture officer and horticulture officer before administering the said pesticides and fungicides to the crop and the complainant himself is responsible for his own negligent act which results the damage. But unnecessarily he throwed blame on the opposite party who is not at all responsible for the damage to its crop. The complainant himself is responsible for the said damage because he fails to take the proper advice before using the pesticides. The opposite party further contended that they filed analytical report of Kapeni fungicide which reveals their bonafides that that they followed standard levels and hence the very act of the complainant itself clearly shows that he is negligent in administering the pesticides and fungicides and unnecessarily throwing the blame on the opposite party. Hence there is no deficiency of service on part of them. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed against them.

         On the basis of the pleadings, affidavits, and documents filed by both parties the points for consideration are:

       

1. Whether the opposite party no.1 suggested to the complainant to purchase the fungicides and pesticides get the good yield his crop?
2. Whether the complainant followed the standard procedure which is printed on the label of the fungicides and pesticides?
3. Whether there is any deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties in selling the pesticides and fungicides?
4. Whether the opposite parties are entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
5.  To what result?

 

          4. Point No:-(i), (ii)& (iii): There is no dispute regarding the purchase of the profex insecticide which was manufactured by opposite party no.2  and also purchase of Kapeni fungicide manufactured by opposite party no.3 from the opposite party no.1, who is a dealer of opposite party no.2 &3 with vide cash bill by paying Rs.325/- on 04.02.2014 under Ex.A1 by the complainant because same was admitted by the opposite parties.

          The main contention of the complainant is that he as purchased the above pesticides and fungicides with the advice of the opposite party no.1 in order to get good yield of the crop of Chrysanthemum (Chamanthi Flowers) and he sprayed the above said pesticides and fungicides to his flowering crop.  But he shocked when he went to his fields the very next day of administering the above said pesticides and fungicides that he noticed that all the flowers and buds got dried and sustained heavy loss as the entire crop was  damaged by using the pesticides and fungicides which was advised by the opposite party no.1 and  in order to prove his contention that his crop was damaged due to spraying  the fungicides and pesticides he filed  Ex.A3 report given by the Horticulture Officer dated 08.02.2014 . The contention of the op no.1is that they are the  dealers of the fertilizers  and pesticides and they will sell the products which were received from the manufacturers in a sealed containers and also same was sold to the customers and further contended that they never advised the complainant to use the above pesticides and fungicides to the above said crop and also he has contended that the above pesticides and fungicides has to be used when the crop is affected by any pests and disease, but in this particular case the complainant stated that he purchased the above said products for the excellent yield of the crop. Hence the nature of the use of the crop itself is suspected and also contended that the complainant has to use this product by taking the advice of the agricultural officer who is competent to advice the farmers. But in this case he failed to do the same rather than that he throwing blame on opposite party no.1 who are the only dealers of the products. Hence in the absence of any documentary proof that the op no.1 suggested the complainant to purchase the pesticide and fungicide as contended by the complainant cannot be considered.

           The counsel for the opposite Party no.2&3 also contended that they are the reputed manufacturers and fungicides and distribute the same all over the India and they never received any complaint of the particular product mentioned in the complaint except alleged complaint. And further contended that they will follow standard levels while preparing the products. And also stated that the complainant has to follow the instructions printed in the leaf let of the container (Label of instructions) while using the pesticides and fungicides. But in this particular case he has not stated anywhere in his affidavit or in his complaint that he has followed the instructions in the leaf let. In Ex.B3 label of profex pesticide which  specify some instructions to be followed for the usage of the product  and no where it is mentioned in the said label the above product is suggestible to use for the chamanthi flowers ,that itself clearly shows that the complainant fails to follow the instructions which are mentioned in the label of the product container and also except bald allegation the complainant fails to place any evidence to show that the opposite party no.1 suggested to use the above pesticides and fungicides for good yield of the crop. But assume for a moment that if the opposite party no.1 suggested the complainant to purchase the alleged products, but being a farmer he has to opt for fertilizers or any manure for good yield of the crop than the pesticides  or fungicides which were used when the crop is affected by any disease or pests which creates havoc for the fields, but nowhere in the complaint  or in evidence on affidavit he has  mentioned that the crop was affected by the disease or pests  which creates doubt and adverse inference can be drawn against the complainant that he suppressed the real fact and he has not approached the forum with clean hands and he fails to prove that the opposite party no.1  suggested the complainant to purchase the above said pesticides and fungicides.

          The counsels for the opposite party no. 2&3 contended that the said pesticides and fungicides are not suggested to use for the chrysanthemum flowers which were cultivated by the complainant. The complainant has not placed any document or any laboratory report to substantiate his contention that the crop was damaged 100% due to application of the pesticides and fungicides. The Ex.A3 the report of the Horticulture Officer reveals that there was total damage of the crop was due to application of the above pesticides and fungicides as he has mentioned in the report whatever the damage was stated by the complainant, but he has not conducted any laboratory test for the sample of the crop or to ascertain the reasons for the real damage occurred to the crop. Hence in the absence of any supportive evidence it cannot be considered.  Hence in this particular case it clearly shows that the complainant without taking any proper advice of concerned agricultural officer and horticulture officer he has purchased the products and administered the same to his crop and he fails to follow the standard procedure as mentioned in the label which causes damage to his crop for his own fault. Hence the complainant fails to prove that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on part of the opposite parties.  Accordingly this point is answered against the complainant.

        5.Point no.( iv): As the point discussed above and answered against the complainant as there is no deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties. The complainants are not entitled for the reliefs as prayed for. Accordingly this point is answered.

         6. Point:- (v):  In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

             Typed by the stenographer, to the dictation in Open Forum, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open forum this the 26^th day of June, 2015.

          Sd/-                                                                                                                Sd/-

  Lady Member                                                                                                             President

 

C.C.No.27/2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT

 

PW-1: Rachetly Venkatesulu (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

                        WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 

RW-1: P.Parthasarathy (Chief Affidavit filed)

RW-2: J.Reddaiah (Chief Affidavit filed)

RW-3: R.V.Babu Rao (Chief Affidavit filed)

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/S

 

Exhibits	Description of Documents
Ex.A1.	Original copy of Cash bill wide No.2294.  Dt: 04.02.2014.
2.	Original copy of Sail test report. Dt: 20.03.2014.
3.	Opinion Letter of Horticulture Officer, Bangarupalyam. Dt: 08.02.2014.
4.	Office copy of legal notice with postal receipts. Dt: 10.02.2014.
5.	Postal Acknowledgement card from O.P.No.1. Dt: 18.02.2014.
6.	Postal Acknowledgement card from O.P.No.2. Dt: 22.02.2014.
7.	Reply notice from O.P.No.1. Dt: 26.02.2014.
8.	Reply notice from O.P.No.3. Dt: 05.03.2014.
9.	Flower merchant contract bill. Dt: 15.12.2013.
10.	Sakshi newspaper. Dt: 06.02.2014.
11.	Positive photos Nos. 3 along with C.D.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT/S

 

Exhibits	Description of Documents
Ex.B1.	Office copy of reply notice sent by this Opposite Party to the counsel for the complainant. Dt: 10.03.2014.
2.	Returned cover from the counsel for the complainant along with the reply notice.
3.	Leaf let in Telugu regarding use of Profex insecticide.
4.	Analytical Report of KAPENI 75% WP.    Dt: 27.08.2014.

 

 

 

                                                                                                                       Sd/-

President

 

           

 

 

 

 

 

 

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

            Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

 

Copies to:  The Complainant

                   The opposite parties.