BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 138 of 2014
Date of Institution : 14.10.2014
Date of Decision : 20.9.2016
Balbir Singh aged about 54 years son of Shri Bhag Singh, resident of village Gadrana, Tehsil Dabwali and District Sirsa.
……Complainant
Versus.
1. M/s Roshan Lal Sanjeev Kumar, resident of 480B, New Mandi Kalanwali, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa, through its Prop./ Authorised person.
2. Sahib Pesticides, 0-8 SCF-11, Ist Floor, New Sabzi Mandi, Karnal 132001 (Haryana), through its Authorized person.
3. Adhunik Crop Care Pvt Ltd., SCO-386, Top Floor, Sector 37-D, Chandigarh 160036, through its Authorized person.
..…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH.S.B.LOHIA …………………………..PRESIDENT
SH.RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……….MEMBER.
Present: Sh.L.S.Sarari. Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Ajay Bansal , Advocate for opposite parties no.1 & 3.
Opposite party no.2 exparte.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief is that the complainant is a small farmer and is having 5 acres of agricultural land and also takes 8 acres land on lease basis from Hamir Singh and Gurpyar Singh at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per acre per year and out of the said agriculture income he is maintaining his family for his livelihood. The complainant had sowed Narma crop in the land measuring 13 acres and spent about Rs.25,000/- per acre upon seeds, pesticides, fertilizer and labour etc. for maintaining his crop. On 9.8.2014, complainant approached the op no.1 and disclosed his requirement of pesticides for 13 acres of land and also requested to supply the best quality pesticides, so that the crop of the cotton may be saved from the attack of insects and other calamities and the complainant may be able to get the best crop. The opposite party no.1 supplied the pesticides i.e. 1½ liter Star-care for an amount of Rs.1950/-, 2½ liters Ramdev for Rs.7500/-. Thus, the complainant purchased the pesticides for total amount of Rs.9450/- vide bill No.792 dated 9.8.2014 from op no.1. The complainant sprayed the pesticides on cotton crop as per the directions/ guidelines given by op no.1. After few days after spray of pesticides, the complainant was astonished to see that whole cotton crop of the complainant has been ruined/ destroyed which happened only due to spray of the poisonous/ mix- branded pesticides supplied by op no.1. The complainant immediately approached the op no.1 and complained about the loss to his crop but op no.1 did not take any action. Then he moved an application to the Director Agriculture Officer, Sirsa on 19.8.2014 and also moved applications to other authorities but no action was taken. The complainant also moved an application to the Sub Divisional Officer, Mandi Dabwali requesting therein that the crop status may kindly be got verified from the Agriculture Officer and to make payment of compensation amount for the damages on account of burnt crops. Thereafter, on the application of complainant, Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Mandi Dabwali, Block Agriculture Officer, Odhan, Agriculture Development Officer, Taruana reported that complainant has done hard labour in the standing crop sowed in 13 acres of land and after inspection, they have reported that due to spray of double dose of the pesticides, there occurred high tonicity in the cotton crop on account of which the complainant has suffered loss of crop. They also reported that pesticides sold by op no.1 has not been approved and recommended by the Haryana Agriculture University, Hisar. The opposite parties were requested time and again to admit his claim, but to no effect. It is further averred that earlier the complainant was getting minimum produce of 13 quintal crop out of one acre land and due to act and conduct of op no.1, the complainant has suffered net loss of Rs.8,45,000/- and has suffered mental harassment. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 & 3 appeared and filed written statement asserting therein that the complainant is required to prove the assertions by leading cogent and convincing evidence. The op no.1 is the authorized dealer of ops No.2 & 3. The products sold to the complainant are of very high quality. There had not been any complaint from any quarter against these products. The Ramdev product manufactured by Sahib Pesticides contains diafethiuron 50% and it comes in a powdered form. It is generally used to kill white fly and to control the diseases like Mites, Aphids and Jassids. Similarly, Adhunik is the product of op no.3 starcare company and it contains Thiamethoxam 25%. This product is meant for curbing Tela in the cotton crops. It is also relevant to mention here that the agriculture department took samples of these products and vide report dated 12.9.2014 of the Insecticides Analyst duly counter signed by Senior Analyst Quality Control Lab (Pesticide) Sirsa, the same has been found to be of conformable limits. The test was conducted as per the I.S specifications. The complainant has tried to misinterpret the report of the Agriculture department. The answering ops were never associated at the time of alleged inspection. Rather the report states that the things happened because of spray by the farmer by mixing two different kinds of insecticides and using double quantity than the required which is not recommended by the Haryana Agriculture University, Hisar. In this way no fault can be attributed to answering ops and no where in the report there is any remark about the quality of the insecticides/ pesticides. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
3. Opposite party no.2 did not appear despite service and as such op no.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 24.12.2014.
4. The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of cash/credit memo dated 9.8.2014 Ex.C2, copies of applications Ex.C3 to C5, copy of letter dated 25.8.2014 alongwith inspection report Ex.C6, copy of news published in a newspaper Ex.C7, copy of lease deed Ex.C8 and also documents Ex.C9 to Ex.C15, affidavit of Rajbinder Singh Ex.C16, affidavit of Lakhvir Singh Ex.C17. On the other hand, ops No.1 & 3 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.R1 and copies of certificates Ex.R2 to R5.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. The main dispute in this complaint is that adulterated, inferior quality and sub standard mixed pesticide was sold by the opposite party no. 1. Due to this adulterated pesticide cotton crop of the complainant has been damaged. The complainant moved an application to the Deputy Director Agriculture, Sirsa for spot inspection. After inspection of the field by Sub-Divisional Agriculture Officer, Dabwali and Block Agriculture Officer, Odhan and Agriculture Development Officer, Taruana, inspection report was given alongwith letter Ex.C6. As per report, there were chances of loss of more than 50% of crop. The said Agriculture Officers also reported that farmer mixed two types of pesticides and sprayed more than double quantity than the required which is not recommended by the Haryana Agriculture University, Hisar. They have further reported that loss to the crop has been happened due to high dose, double spray and tonicity. Thus, the report itself attributes the fault upon the complainant himself and does not pin point any defect in the pesticides purchased from opposite party no.1. The report does not reveal anything about quality of pesticides. No sample of pesticides was sent to the Lab. for analysis whereas opposite parties have placed on file copies of certificates Ex.R2 and Ex.R3 to prove that samples of the above said pesticides were tested in the Laboratory and have been found permissible.
7. Further, as per letter of Director Agriculture Department dated 3.1.2002, issued to all the Deputy Directors in the State in which it is directed by the Director Agriculture, that inspection team should be consisting of total four members, two officer of Agriculture Department, one representative from concerned agency and one scientist from Krishi Vigyan Kendra and report will be submitted. The intent of this letter is that the fields will be inspected by a committee including the representative of concerned agency and it is only in his presence that the report will be submitted. In the present case, there is nothing on record that any intimation to the representative of the opposite parties was given either by the complainant or by the inspecting team. Even the Scientist was also not joined in the inspection team.
8. So complainant has failed to prove his case. The authorities relied upon by learned counsel for complainant in cases titled as C.T. Sebastian & Saju Vs. T. Stanes and company Ltd. & Ors. IV (2013) CPJ 407 (NC), Jai Kishan Trading Co. Versus Godraj Agrovet Ltd. & Ors. II (2013) CPPJ 208 (NC), Bayer Crop Science Ltd. Vs. Surjit Singh & Anr. III (2012) CPJ 58 (NC) and also authority of our own State Commission in case titled as Ved Parkash Gopal Dass Vs. Devi Lal II (2011) CPJ 173 are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and are factually distinguishable. Accordingly the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed 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. President,
Dated:20.9.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Member. Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
