BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 318 of 2020
Date of Institution : 18.12.2020
Date of Decision : 29.08.2024.
Anil Kumar aged about 45 years son of Shri Udmi Ram, resident of village Nehrana, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. M/s Ramesh Trading Company, 13- Shivalya Market, Fatehabad District Fatehabad through its Proprietor.
2. Shree Fertilizers and company, HSIIDC, Sirsa through its Managing Director.
..…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
BEFORE: SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………….. PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………. MEMBER
Present: Sh. V.P. Saharan, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Rajesh Mehta, Advocate for the opposite party no.1.
Opposite party no.2 already exparte.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (after amendment under Section 35 of C.P. Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant is an agriculturist by profession and he is owner in possession of agricultural land situated in village Nehrana, Tehsil and District Sirsa. The complainant had sown Narma crop in his six acres of land. The op no.1 is the authorized dealer of op no.2 and op no.2 is manufacturer of the Monosil spray. It is further averred that before sowing the narma crop, the complainant had purchased Monosil spray from op no.1 for a total sum of Rs.350/- through invoice no. 1523 dated 25.6.2017 after assurance of op no.1 about its best quality and proper yield and thereafter complainant had sprayed the same in his six acres of land as per instructions and guidelines of op no.1 but the narma crop of complainant became defective and could not be germinated. The crop was grown up to the height of 3.5’4’ only and the flower of narma crops also could not be germinated properly due to which complainant has suffered huge loss in his six acres of land whereas as per assurance of the ops, the complainant had to get 14 quintals narma crop per acre but complainant had received only 02 quintal per acre and the remaining crops sown in six acres of land was badly damaged. That thereafter the matter was reported to the ops but they have not given any satisfactory reply to the complainant. It is further averred that complainant moved an application to the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa and on that application Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Sirsa (Expert) was appointed to inspect the crops of complainant and on 22.09.2017 the above said officer/ Assistant Plant Protection Officer, Sirsa visited the fields of complainant and submitted report to the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa and the loss assessed for above said six acres of land comes to Rs.58,800/- per acre and the complainant suffered total loss of Rs.4,11,600/- including the loss of amount spent on cultivation of land. It is further averred that complainant is also suffering from mental tension and harassment etc. and as such he is also entitled to compensation of Rs.35,000/- and both the ops are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said amounts to the complainant and they are also liable to pay litigation expenses to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, op no.1 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, suppression of material facts and that there is no deficiency in service in any manner on the part of answering op as answering op was/is the authorized dealer of op no.2 and has sold the Monosil spray to the complainant in sealed pack as received from op no.2. The answering op has no concern and connection with the manufacturing of Monosil spray, but answering op has been impleaded and joined as party to the present complaint intentionally, malafidely by complainant, hence present complaint against answering op is liable to be dismissed with costs. On merits, it is submitted that it is not established that purchased product was duly sprayed as prescribed on the packing of product. Further it may be possible that alleged damage of crops was due to use of other company spray or any other reason and after damage of crop, the complainant made a plan to blackmail the answering op. The complainant failed to produce the report that the spray is the reason of damage of crops as alleged. The spray was totally safe and the damages of crops is not possible, so the damages is not related to use of spray. The complainant has falsely alleged that the monosil spray is the reason of alleged damages. No report has been placed on file to prove that the crop has been damaged on account of adulteration or deficiency in monosil spray. It is further submitted that alleged report has been got prepared by complainant at his own from Agriculture Department in absence of answering op without issuance of any notice to answering op, hence same is not binding upon answering op. However, in the alleged report nowhere it has been mentioned that due to Monosil spray complainant suffered loss. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Op no.2 did not appear despite delivery of notice and as none appeared on behalf of op no.2, therefore, op no.2 was proceeded against exparte.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6.
6. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Proprietor Ex. RW1/A.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned counsel for op no.1 and have gone through the case file.
8. From the inspection report of the fields of complainant Ex.C4, it is evident that inspection of the field of complainant was carried out by Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Sirsa and Subject Specialist, Sirsa. However, in the inspection report of the field of complainant Ex.C4, the said officers have not mentioned that which type of spray was used on the cotton crop by the complainant and they have not mentioned in their report that loss of crop was only due to inferior quality of spray and not due to any other reason. Further more, the inspection of the field of the complainant was not carried out as per the letter of the Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula dated 03.01.2022 because as per said letter fields of complainant was to be inspected by a committee comprising two officers of agriculture department, one representative of concerned seed agency and scientists of KGK/ KVK, HAU but however, no representative of the ops was joined at the time of inspection and even no notice of the same was given to them. Only one officer of agriculture department and one subject specialist carried out the inspection of the field of complainant which is clear violation of the above said letter dated 03.01.2022 and as such the report itself is defective and not valid in the eyes of law. Moreover, in the report it is not clear that complainant suffered loss due to poor quality of spray purchased from op no.1 because the inspecting team has not stated even a single word about using of any specific spray/ pesticide by the complainant and that loss of crop was only due to use of spray and as such it cannot be said that ops have supplied duplicate spray to the complainant. Moreover, good germination and good yield depends upon so many factors like quality of land, quality of water, source of irrigation and weather conditions. So, the complainant has failed to prove on record that ops have supplied misbranded and substandard quality of the spray to him.
9. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced : Member President,
Dated: 29.08.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa
