Haryana

Jind

CC/130/2012

Rajbir - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Ram Dhari Jai Parkash - Opp.Party(s)

Sh K.B. Nagar

22 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND. 
                                           Complaint No. 130 of 2012
   Date of Institution: 11.4.2012
   Date of final order: 22.8.2016

Rajbir s/o Sh. Kali Ram r/o Safidon, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind.
                                                             ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
M/s Ram Dhari Jai Parkash, anaj mandi, Safidon, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind.
Sumitomo Chemical India Pvt. Ltd. C/o Frontier Agencies Pvt. Ltd. General and Allied Industries Company, G.T. road bye pass, Karnal-132001, plot No. K-2866/06.
                                                         …..Opposite parties.
                          Complaint under section 12 of
              Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.    
    
Present: Sh. K.B. Nagar, Adv. for complainant.
             Sh. Lokender Kumar Adv. for opposite parties.
         
ORDER:
            The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant is agriculturist by profession and  had purchased  10 packets of Leader chemical for his Rabi crop for a sum of Rs.3500/- vide receipt No.5967 dated 27.1.2012 from opposite party No.1. The complainant  took 27 killas of land on lease  for the period of one year from June 2011 to June, 2012 from Kewal Singh & Manager Singh and he had sown seed of wheat in 10 killas of land out of 27 killas. The above said chemical was used by son of complainant in his fields as per 
            Rajbir Vs. Ram Dhari Jai Parkash etc.
                    …2…
norms, instructions and literature provided by the opposite parties. But after few days of use of above said chemical the complainant noticed that the colour of the Rabi crop began to pale and also began to dry and ultimately the whole crop of the complainant got dried and damaged due to use of inferior quality of chemical. Thereafter, the complainant approached the opposite parties and intimated the damaged crop due to inferior quality of chemical and complainant requested to compensate to him but the opposite  parties flatly refused to take any responsibility. Thereafter, the complainant moved an application to agriculture authorities and intimated regarding the damage of crops and requested to inspect his field. The field of complainant was inspected by a team of agriculture officers constituted by the competent agriculture authorities on 21.2.2012  and report was submitted by them and in this report it was revealed that the crop of the complainant was fully damaged due to use of chemical. Due to inferior quality of chemical the complainant has suffered huge amount.  Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to make  the payment of Rs.3,00,000/- towards the losses suffered to damage of crops, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony as well as to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses  to the complainant. 
2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties have  put in appearance and filed the   separate written statement. Opposite party No.1 has contending in the preliminary objections i.e. the complainant has got 
            Rajbir Vs. Ram Dhari Jai Parkash etc.
                    …3…
no  cause of action and  locus-standi to file the present complaint and this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint.  On merits, it is contended that the answering opposite party purchased the above said chemical in sealed  and packed condition and sold the same to the complainant. The complainant has not used the chemical in proper and prescribed manner and even as per report of Agriculture Department the crop is damaged at some places it means that chemical was not used properly. The complainant has not produced J Form which was received by the former from Grain Market Commission Agent, in that J Form the variety of the  crop its rate and quantity are mentioned in the said commission agent.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with cost of Rs.50,000/- is prayed for.  
3.    Opposite party No.2 has contended that  the complainant has not produced any lease agreement, jamabandi and khasra girdwari of the land in question. The chemical manufactured by answering opposite party is of good quality and fully tested and same is fully effective on Mandusi and Gulli Danda. The team of the Agriculture Department inspected the field of the complainant in the absence of answering opposite party. The complainant has not used the chemical in proper and prescribed manner and even as per report of Agriculture Department the crop is damaged at some places it means that chemical was not used properly. The complainant has not produced J Form which was received by the former from Grain Market Commission Agent, in that J Form the variety of the  crop its rate and quantity are 
            Rajbir Vs. Ram Dhari Jai Parkash etc.
                    …4…
mentioned in the said commission agent. Dismissal of complaint with compensatory cost is prayed for. 
4.        In evidence, the complainant has produced  the copy of cash memo Ex. C-1, copy of inspection report Ex. C-2, copy of affidavit of Rajbir Singh Ex. C-3, statement of  Kewal Singh Ex. C-4 and affidavit of complainant Ex. C-5 and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, the opposite parties have produced the affidavit of Jai Parkash, Proprietor Ex. OP-1, affidavit of Varun vikas MD, authorized signatory Ex. OP-2, copies of invoice Ex. OP-3 and Ex. OP-4 and copy of letter dated 3.1.2002 Ex. OP-5 and closed the evidence. 
5.    We have heard Ld. counsel of both the parties and also perused the record placed on file. Counsel for complainant argued that complainant had purchased 10 packets of Leader chemical from opposite party No.1  and used in his 9 acres of wheat crops as per norms, instructions provided by the opposite parties. It is further argued that after few days used of above said chemical the colour of the wheat crop began to pale and also began to dry and ultimately the whole crop of complainant got dried and damaged due to use of inferior quality of chemical. The team of Agriculture Department inspected the field of the complainant and submitted his report that the crop of complainant was fully damaged due to use of chemical and prayed to allow the complaint. 
6.    On the other hand, counsel for opposite parties argued that the complainant has not used the chemical in proper and prescribed manner. It is further argued that the complainant has not produced the 
            Rajbir Vs. Ram Dhari Jai Parkash etc.
                    …5…
copy of jamabandi and girdwari on record to establish that he has sown the wheat crop in his land and has not produced the J Form  which was received by the former from Grain Market Commission Agent in that J Form the variety of the crop its rate and quantity  are mentioned. Counsel for opposite parties further argued that the complainant never informed about inspection of field by team of Agriculture Department nor Team of  Agriculture Department informed regarding inspection of the filed to the opposite parties. In case there is any such report with the complainant then same was prepared at the back of opposite parties and the same is not binding and prayed for dismissal of complaint. 
7.    We are of the confirm view that the field of the complainant was inspected in the absence of opposite parties. As per the direction given by Director of Agriculture Haryana, Panchkula vide letter  dated 3.1.2002 whenever the committee will inspect the field of the farmer then the field of the farmer will be inspected by a committee comprising two officers of Agriculture department and one  representative of concerned seed agency and Scientists of KGK/KVK, HAU and report will be submitted to this office immediately after inspection. In the present case three officers i.e. Agriculture Development Officer, Panjukalan and another ADO, Khatla and Block Agriculture Officer, Safidon but they have not formed the Committee as per direction of the Department and they have not included one Scientist of KGK/KVK/HAU, it is clear cut violation of the above said instruction of the Agriculture Department nor they have called upon 

            Rajbir Vs. Ram Dhari Jai Parkash etc.
                    …6…
the  any representative of the concerned seed agency of the opposite party. The above said report has been prepared in the absence of the representative of the agency. So the above said report is not  binding upon the opposite parties. Hence, the above said report is not legally sustainable in the eyes of law.  There is no deficiency is established on the part of the opposite parties. 
8.    Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case against the opposite parties  and there is no merit in the complaint, therefore, the complaint is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room. 
Announced on: 22.8.2016

                                 President,
          Member        Member     District Consumer Disputes                                           Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

 

 

            Rajbir Vs. Ram Dhari Jai Parkash etc.
                    

Present: Sh. K.B. Nagar, Adv. for complainant.
             Sh. Lokender Kumar Adv. for opposite parties.

            Arguments heard. To come up on 22.8.2016 for orders. 
                                President,
        Member       Member                DCDRF, Jind
                                  18.8.2016

Present: Sh. K.B. Nagar, Adv. for complainant.
             Sh. Lokender Kumar Adv. for opposite parties.

             Order announced, vide our separate order of even date. The complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.  
                                President,
    Member              Member                DCDRF, Jind
                                22.8.2016