BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 61 of 2016                                                                          

                                                           Date of Institution         :    18.02.2016

                                                          Date of Decision   :   17.8.2017.

Billu Singh son of Sh. Variam Singh resident of Kalanwali Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                              ……Complainant.

                                      Versus.

1. M/s Rakesh Trading Company, Shop No.47 New Mandi Kalanwali Tehsil and District Sirsa, through its Prop/partner/Manager/Auth. Person.

2. Gharda Chemicals Limited C/o Chaudhary Agencies, 116/7 Mile Stonne,Near Madhuban Lane, G.T. Road Karnal-132001, through its Prop/Director, Auth. Person.

..…Opposite parties.

                      Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SMT. RAJNI GOYAT ………………..PRESIDING MEMBER.

                   SH.MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ……….MEMBER.

Present:       Sh. G.         S. Sra, Advocate for complainant.

       Sh.JBL Garg, Advocate for opposite party no.1.

                   Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite party no.2.

ORDER

                   Case of the complainant, in brief is that the complainant is agriculturist and has two acres of agricultural land in village Kalanwali, Tehsil and District Sirsa and also used to cultivate the land of other land owners on lease basis. The op no.1 deals with the business of seed, pesticides and fertilizers and are dealers of the same and running shop No.47, New Mandi Kalanwali under the name and style of M/s Rakesh Trading Company. OP no.2 Gharda Chemicals Ltd. c/o Chaudhary Agencies, Karnal is manufacturing company of the pesticide. It is further averred that complainant was in need of pesticide for his two acres own land and 7 acres of land which has been taken by him on lease/theka basis from Baggar Singh, Boggar Singh, Narotam Singh and Hardev Singh etc. at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per acre per year and sown the cabbage crop in the above said 9 acre land comprised in khewat No.9 Sq. No.231 killa no. 20/1(6-0) 8 (8-0) 9(8-0) khewat no.14 Sq. No.232 killa no.5/3(4-1) Sq. No. 231 killa No. 10/1(7-6) 18(8-0) 19(8-0) Sq. No.232 killa no.6/1 (7-0) Khewat no. 1635 Sq. No.230 killa no.13(8-0) 18(8-0). The complainant has appointd a gardener namely Aassa Ram son of Ram Nath for looking after his above said land and crop. The complainant was in need of pesticide for his above said cabbage crop, hence he sent his gardener(Mali) for purchase of the pesticide, who approached to the shop of respondent No.1 and purchased one packet of pesticide namely “Hamla” bearing batch No. 2918 for an amount of Rs.600/- vide bill No.4291 dated 12.10.2015. The op no.1 assured the complainant that this pesticide is of very good and reputed company and will be very helpful for destroying the harmful insecticides. On every type of assurance of the op no.1 the gardener of the complainant purchased the same and complainant got sprayed the same on the above said 9 acres of crop of cabbage. It is further averred that after spraying the said pesticides, instead of getting benefit/profit, the said pesticides destroyed the sown crop and all the sown crop was destroyed which was only due to duplicate pesticide provided by the op no.1 to the complainant. The complainant immediately approached to op no.1 and told about it. However, inspite of listening complainant, the op no.1 started saying that he cannot  do anything in this regard. The complainant asked the respondent that he has sold duplicate pesticide to him due to which he has suffered a great loss, but op no.1 forcibly ousted the complainant from his shop by passing threat to him. Thereafter on 28.10.2015 the complainant moved an application to the Agriculture Officer Odhan District Sirsa to inspect the fields of the complainant on which the officials of the Agriculture Department Rania inspected the spot on 06.11.2016 and submitted a report dt. 09.11.2016 and found 100% loss to complainant due to duplicate pesticide “Hamla” sold by the ops to the complainant. In this way due to duplicate pesticide sold by the ops, about 100% crop of complainant has been destroyed and complainant has suffered a loss of Rs. about 10 lacs. Due to the act of the ops, the complainant has also suffered  mental pain, tension, agony and disappointment etc. hence the complainant is also entitled for the compensation of Rs.one lac for the same.  Hence, this complaint.  

2.                Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections that the complainant is not consumer of the answering op as he did not purchase any pesticides from the answering op; that complainant has no locus-standi, no cause of action, complainant has concealed and suppressed the true and material facts from this Forum and has not come with clean hands, as such, the complainant is not entitled to any relief, whatsoever, that complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct and that complaint in hand is not maintainable in the present form as no defect in the pesticides is proved in the present complaint. It is further submitted that the alleged inspection report prepared by the officials of the Agriculture Department is not in accordance to the letter memo No.52-70/TA(SS) dated PKL the 03.01.2002, issued by the Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula to all the Deputy Directors of Agriculture in the State of Haryana. Therefore, the alleged inspection report cannot be relied upon. Moreover, the answering op was neither given any notice of alleged inspection of the field of the complainant nor the answering ops joined in the alleged inspection of field. It is further submitted that since the complainant is not the consumer of the answering op and no consumer dispute is made out between the parties, so the present complaint does not lie before this Forum and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the subject matter of present complaint. It is further submitted that complainant did not purchase any pesticide from the answering op no.1 on 12.10.2015 vide bill no.4291. As a matter of fact, one Mr. Assa Ram son of Ram Nath of Kalanwali, District Sirsa had purchased the pesticide Hamla 550 vide bill no. 4201 dated 12.10.2015 from the answering op. The answering op sold the said pesticides to aforesaid Mr. Assa Ram in the same duly packed and sealed condition, in which the same was received by it from its manufacturing Company. The answering op never gave any alleged assurance to complainant or to Mr. Assa Ram. The complainant did not purchase any pesticides from the answering op no.1, so the question of spraying the same in his field and alleged loss to his crop does not arise. The complainant never approached the answering op and never disclosed about the alleged loss to his crops. The answering op has no knowledge and notice of alleged spot inspection of the field of the complainant by the officers of the Agriculture Department, because no notice was ever given to the answering op by the officers of the Agriculture Department about alleged spot inspection. The alleged inspection report is not a legal, valid and scientific report, because no square and killa numbers have been mentioned in the same which were allegedly inspected by the officers of the Agriculture Department. In the alleged spot inspection report, it is no where mentioned that the entire crop of the complainant was destroyed. With these averments, dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.

3.                Opposite party no.2 appeared and also filed separate written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant has filed the present complaint on wrong facts with an ulterior motive of harassing and humiliating answering op no.2 on the basis of wrong report. The complainant being dishonest in litigation is not entitled to any relief, whatsoever, from this Forum. It is further submitted that no pesticides was ever purchased by complainant from answering op no.2. The op no.2 is a reputed pesticides company who have authorized dealers in all over India and it is correct that the op no.1 is one of the authorized dealers and pesticides products are provided to all other dealers against proper batch, bills and in sealed air tight packing with long expiry date. It is further submitted that the complainant never approached to the op no.2 before purchased of the pesticides in question and even after purchased of the pesticides, so no question of assurance is arisen out. The said pesticides marketed and manufactured by the answering op no.2 is of high quality and advanced level and the same is supplied to the authorized dealers in sealed packing. The answering op no.2 is not responsible for the quality of pesticides. It seems that complainant by exercising his influence has managed to obtain some false report suitable to him and that too, without seeking the version of answering op no.2 in the matter which fact itself shows that complainant would try to manipulate such type of document during the proceedings of the present complaint with a view to blackmail the answering op company. It is further submitted that the complainant never used the pesticides as per guidelines. Rather the complainant is itself liable for the alleged loss and on these false grounds the complainant is not entitled to any relief from the op no.2. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief against op no.2 and complaint in hand being false, frivolous and vexatious is liable to be dismissed with special costs.

4.                The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C1, affidavit of Sukhdev Singh Ex.C2, affidavit of Narotam Singh Ex.C3, affidavit of Baggar Singh Ex.C4, affidavit of Aassa Ram Ex.C5, of cash/credit memo No.4291 dated 12.10.2015 Ex.C6, copy of application moved by Assa Ram to HDO, Odhan Ex.C7, copy of letter dated 9.11.2015 of Distt. Horticulture Officer, Sirsa Ex.C8, inspection report dated 9.11.2015 Ex.C9, copy of jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 Ex.C10, khasra girdawari Ex.C11 and photographs Ex.C12 to Ex.C17.  On the other hand, op no.1 produced affidavit of Rameshwar Dass Ex.R1, copy of letter dated 3.1.2002 Ex.R2. OP no.2 produced affidavit of Hari Om Area Sales Manager Ex.R3, authorization letter Ex.R4 and laboratory report Ex.R5.

5.                We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard  learned counsel for the parties.

6.                From the perusal of bill No.4291 dated 12.10.2015 (Ex.C6), it is quite clear that one Aassa Ram son of Ram Nath had purchased one liter Hamla 550 (batch No.2918) pesticide for an amount of Rs.600/- on 12.10.2015. The complainant has taken the plea that Aassa Ram son of Ram Nath is his gardener (Mali) but tendered no evidence in this regard which may be convincing. Hence, the plea taken by the complainant that he purchased the said pesticide in the name of Aassa Ram and in this way he is a consumer of ops No.1 & 2 is not admissible. Hence, the complainant’s case is not based on merits. Further, the application (Ex.C7) moved to Horticulture Development Officer, Odhan (Sirsa) by Aassa Ram mentions agricultural land measuring 10 acres which is different from the agricultural land as mentioned by complainant in para No.3 of his complaint. Even the details of agricultural land as mentioned by Aassa Ram in his affidavit tendered in evidence is different than that given in his application Ex.C7. Further the inspection report Ex.C9 is in the name of said Aassa Ram and makes no mention of Billu Singh complainant. Thus, this inspection report is not related to the complainant. Further, the inspection committee was not constituted as per guidelines issued by Director of Agriculture, Haryana vide memo No.5270 dated 3.1.2002 (copy Ex.R2). There was no representative of the firm at the time of inspection of the field of complainant. Hence, the inspection report itself is faulty and not admissible. On the other hand, the ops have tendered lab report dated 11.12.2015 of Quality Control Laboratory (Insecticides) conducted by Sh. Om Parkash ADO as Ex.R5 regarding batch No. HML 2910 BE and same has been found satisfactory/ permissible.

7.                Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to prove his case. Hence, he is not entitled to any relief. As such, the present complaint is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs.  A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.                                           Presiding Member,

Dated:17.8.2017.                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                              Member.                          Redressal Forum, Sirsa.