Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1265/2012

Mukesh Kumar S/o Prem Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Rana Trading Company - Opp.Party(s)

R.K.Duggal

27 Mar 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                          Complaint No. 1265 of 2012.

                                                                                          Date of institution: 07.12.2012  

                                                                                          Date of decision: 27.03.2017

 

1. Mukesh Kumar, aged about 35, son of Shri Prem Chand, resident village Sabapur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

2. Smt. Shanti Devi, aged about 65 year, wife of Shri Ram Singh.

 

3. Joginder Singh, aged about 40 years, son of Ram Singh, both resident of Jai pur, Block Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                            

      …Complainants.

                                    Versus

1. M/s Rama Trading Company, Bubka Road Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

2. United Phosphorus Ltd., 3-11 GLBC VAPI (GUJARAT)-396195 through its Managing Director.

                                                                                                              …Respondents.

 

 

BEFORE:       SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:          Shri RK Guggal, Advocate for complainant.

                        None for OP No.1

                        Sh. Jasbir Dholra, Advocate for OP No.2.

ORDER

 

1                      The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainants, are that complainants purchased ULALA (Fionicamid) from the respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred as OP No.1) believing that the insecticide is unique and recently developed medicine for the crop protection which has been successfully launched by the OP No.2 in the open market, with trans laminar action for controlling the sucking pests. The field trials of ULALA have been conducted on cotton and paddy fields for its effectiveness. Believing in bona fide representation of OP No.1, the complainants jointly purchased the above named insecticide vide invoice No.3708 dated 14.09.2012 for their paddy fields situated in village Sabarpur and Jaipur respectively with a great hope to harvest their bounty. The complainants are qualified and well experienced  farmers who after purchase of the above named insecticide, used its spray on their respective fields as instructed and directed. It is the instruction for its use that ULALA can be sprayed at 60-80 gms per acre for effective control of BPH, WBPH & GLH in paddy field. The complainant No.1 used the insecticides on his 3 acre paddy fields and the complainant No.2 used the insecticides on his 5 acres but it was most unfortunate that even after the adequate period, the above insecticide failed to kill HOPEER insect and the crop of paddy of the complainants was miserably damaged due to defective and ineffective insecticides. Accordingly, complainant lodged a report against  the OP No.1 to the SDO Agriculture, Jagadhri who headed by a three expert member team inspected the fields of the complainants and gave their authenticated findings that the loss to the crop of the complainant was 25% and 20% respectively. The paddy, PUSA BASMATI No.1 which was sown by the complainants in their respective field is a small sized crop and the length of the plaints remain 110-115 cm, it usually gave yield of 24 quintal per acre whereas the rice yield remains 18 quintal per acre as per literature of Krishi Vigyaan Kender Damla (Yamuna Nagar). It is further mentioned that market rate of the crop in question as per certification of Market Committee, Jagadhri remains Rs.2091/- per quintal minimum and Rs.2300/- per quintal maximum. Thus, total loss suffered by complainant No.1 is Rs.37,640/- (round) and total loss suffered by complainant No.2 is near about Rs.50,000/- (round) beside the costs of the insecticide which was Rs.5390/- as per invoice enclosed and lastly prayed for directing the OPs to pay compensation, loss along with interest and litigation expenses etc.  

3.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint of the complainant is not maintainable; complainant is estopped from filing the present by his own act and conduct; complainant has no cause of action; complaint of the complainant is false and frivolous just to harass and humiliate the OP No.1;  complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts and on merit all the contents of the complainant have been denied being wrong and incorrect. It has been further submitted that complainant purchased the said product with his own wishes. The complainant has not made a spray of the insecticides in question as it was specified by the OP No.1 and has also not made a spray after 15 days of its first spray. No allegation has been leveled against the OP No.1 as he is not manufacturer of the said insecticides in question. Lastly, it has been stated that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                     OP No.2 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objection such as complaint is not maintainable; complainants are legally estopped from filling the present complaint by their own acts and conducts; complainants have no locus standi to file the present complaint and on merit the purchase of insecticide has been denied being matter of record. However, it has been submitted that the insecticide in question was to be used with due instructions made on the instruction slip or pack. The insecticide in question was not of inferior quality, nor there is any report regarding the fact that whether there was spray of said insecticide on the paddy crop or not. Furthermore, in the alleged report there is report regarding paddy crop but there is no report whether the insecticides was fake or of inferior quality. The insecticide in question has been tested from lab. It has been further mentioned that if rain falls then there is necessity of re-spray of insecticides on the crops, hence, it cannot be said that there was any defect in the insecticides sold by the OP No.2. The damages in the crop might have occurred due to natural climate, so the complainants are not entitled to get any benefits from the alleged report and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua the OP No.2.

5.                     In support of his case, learned counsel for the complainants tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Mukesh Kumar as Annexure CW/A, affidavit of Shri Shanti Devi as Annexure CW/B, affidavit of Shri Joginder Singhas Annexure CW/C and documents such as photocopy of bill bearing No.3708 dated 14.09.2012 as Annexure C-1, photocopy of report as Annexure C-2, photocopy of certificate issued by Market Committee as Annexure C-3, photocopy of one page of literature of paddy PUSA BASMATI as Annexure C-4, photocopy of jamabandi as Annexure C-5, photocopy of Intkaal as Annexure C-6, photocopy of jamabandi in the year 2006-07 as Annexure C-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                     On the other hand, OPs failed to adduce any evidence and the evidence of the OPs was closed by Court order vide order dated 19.02.2016.

7.                     We have heard the counsels of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely.     

8.                     It is not disputed that one Mukesh resident of Sabapur purchased the insecticides in question from the OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.5390/- which is duly evident from the photocopy of bill dated 14.09.2012 (Annexure C-1). The only version of the complainants is that he, along with other complainants, purchased the insecticides in question from the OP No.1 manufacturer by the OP No.2 and sprayed the same in their fields to save the crop of paddy from HOPEER insect but the crop of the paddy of the complainants was miserably damaged due to defective and ineffective insecticides in question, due to which complainants have suffered financial loss. Learned counsel for complainants draw our attention towards the report (Annexure C-2) prepared by the team of agriculture department and argued that as per this report the crop standing in the village Sabapur had been damaged to the extent 25 percent and the crop standing in the village of Jaipur had been damaged to the extent upto 20 percent. Learned counsel for the complainant further draw our attention towards the certificate issued by Market Committee (Annexure C-3) and other documents (Annexure C-4 to C-7) and argued that complainants are entitled to get the compensation from the OPs along with litigation expenses etc.

9.                     On the other hand, none appeared on behalf of OP No.1 from the last 2-3 dates, however, learned counsel for the OP No.2 argued at length that a false, manipulated, complaint has been filed by the complainant just to extract the money from the OP No.2 Company. Learned counsel for the OP No.2 further argued that the complainants have totally failed to prove that they have actually suffered any financial loss as no bill of sale of the paddy has been placed on file. Learned counsel for the OP No.2 further draws our attention towards the bill (Annexure C-1) and argued that as per this bill only Mukesh resident of Sabapur has purchased the insecticides ULALA whereas, the present complaint has been filed by two other complainants. So, the complaint of two other complainants deserve dismissal as neither they falls under the definition of consumer nor hired any services from OPs. Further, learned counsel for the OP No.2 also argued that the report (Annexure C-2) is a procured documents and no specific instruction issued by the Director of Agricultural, Haryana has been followed by the alleged team as no expert has been joined from the Agriculture University or Krishi Vigyan Kender and even prior to insect the field in question, no notice was given to the dealer or the any representative of the OP No.2 Company. Learned counsel for the OP No.2 further argued that even in this report (Annexure C-2) it has nowhere been mentioned that the insecticide in question was of inferior quality. The loss, if any, may be due to so many other reasons and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OPs.

10.                   After hearing both the parties at length and going through the facts and documents placed on file and further the view held in the case law titled as Shamsher Singh Vs. Bagri Beej Bhandar, IV (2013) CPJ page 186 National Commission, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs as the officials of the Agriculture Department without getting the land identified from any official of the revenue department prior to spot inspection, as no Killa Number or Khasra number has been mentioned in the report carried out the inspection of the crop and prepared the alleged report (Annexure C-2) and as such it cannot be said with certainty as to which field the inspection report in question pertains. Furthermore, inspection team has totally failed to explain the criteria for assessing the percentage of 25% and 20 % of loss as mentioned in the report. In the absence of method adopted by the said team, it cannot be said that the criteria adopted by the said committee was correct. Further, there is no any other evidence on the file to prove that the insecticide in question was of inferior quality. So, after going through the above noted discussion and law.  Although the OPs failed to file any evidence, even then the onus to prove the loss to crop as well as inferior quality of the insecticide in question was on the complainants but the complainants remained fail to discharge the same. The complainants have not followed the provisions of section 13(1) (C) of the Consumer Protection Act which is mandatory in nature. In the absence of any lab report it cannot be presumed that the insecticide in question was of inferior quality.   

11.                   Sequel of the above mentioned discussion is that the complainants have failed to prove any unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Therefore, the complaint of complainant is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Pronounced in open court: 27.03.2017.

                                                                                          (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

                                                                                           DCDRF Yamuna Nagar

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER