BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 137 of 2014
Date of Institution : 14.10.2014
Date of Decision : 18.1.2017
Surjeet Singh son of Shri Puran Singh, resident of village Jandwal Jatan, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. M/s Roshan Lal Sanjeev Kumar, resident of 48-B, New Mandi Kalanwali, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa, through its Prop./ Authorized person.
2. Sumitomo Chemical India Pvt. Ltd., Moti Mahal, 7th Floor, 195, J-Tata Road, Church Gate, Mumbai-400020 (India), through its Manager/ Area Manager/ Authorized person.
3. Adhunik Crop Care Pvt Ltd., SCO-386, Top Floor, Sector 37-D, Chandigarh 160036, through its Authorized person.
4. Mehin Total Chemical Pvt. Ltd. MSA- 151505, total Agro Solutions, Kolkata (West Bengal), 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.
Sh. R.K. Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
Opposite party no.4 exparte.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief is that he is a small farmer having six acres of agricultural land and also takes 6 acres land on lease basis from Nahar Singh at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per acre per year and out of the said agriculture income he is maintaining his family and his livelihood. The complainant had sowed Narma crop in the land measuring 12 acres and spent about Rs.25,000/- per acre upon seeds, pesticides, fertilizer and labour etc. for maintaining his crop. On 7.8.2014, complainant approached the op no.1 and disclosed his requirement of pesticides for 12 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 he may be able to get the best crop. The opposite party no.1 supplied the pesticides i.e. 1liter Trex for an amount of Rs.1760/-, 3 liters Lion heart for Rs.2100/- and six liters uniford for Rs.600/-. Thus, the complainant purchased the pesticides for total amount of Rs.4460/- vide bill No.785 dated 7.8.2014 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 all the flowers/ leafs and cotton bolls which were on the standing crop vanished as an impact of spray of pesticides and the crop suffered from the disease of leafcurl and leaf burnt. The cotton flowers started falling down and thus whole crop of the complainant has been ruined. The complainant immediately approached the Sub Divisional Officer, Sirsa and moved an application to the effect that complainant has suffered damages and undergone pecuniary loss. He also moved another apploication dated 1.9.2014 to the Sub Divisional Officer Mandi Dabwali requesting therein that the crop status of complainant may kindly be got verified from the agriculture officer and to make payment of the compensation amount for the damages. Thereafter, Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Mandi Dabwali, Block Agriculture Officer, Odhan and Agriculture Development Officer, Taruana reported that complainant has done hard labour in the standing crop sowed in 12 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 12 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.7,80,000/- 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. The complainant has concealed the true facts from this Forum. Besides the above pesticides, he also purchased insecticide/ fungicide as detailed in para no.2 of written statement. The report of the Agriculture Department is totally wrong and denied and answering ops were never associated at the time of alleged inspection. The product lion heart is meant for controlling aphids and jasids (Chepa) in vegetables, citrus fruits, pomegranate, grapes etc., product Passion is meant for controlling sucking pests, trex is exclusively meant for controlling the white fly and according to the recommended doze the farmer has to sprinkle 600 to 800 M.L. per acre. The complainant purchased 4 liters trex for 12 acres of land whereas the quantity ought to have been 7.2 liters and as such there is no question of over dozing, product uniford is a combination of nitrogen, potassium and calcium which is meant for growth of the crop and is nothing to do with the white fly, product starlet is a fungicide to remove fungus, star care is meant for controlling Tela (aphids) and grand is used to control second pests and is recommended for the crop of paddy only, product Sahib fipro is meant to control insects and is recommended for the crop of sugarcane and paddy only, product Mono 36% is not recommended for white fly rather it is used to control bug and milibug, product Advant is meant for controlling black and green hooper in paddy crops and product M.con is used to control green tela and termites. The Agriculture Department failed to take into consideration all these facts. It is relevant to mention here that they took samples from op no.1 but the results have not been supplied and in such circumstances the products cannot be said to be of low quality. The sample of Triazophos 40% has not been analyzed by the laboratory. Moreover, in the report of Agriculture Department, there is reference of only two products i.e. lion heart (Trizophos) plus NPK 19:19:19. Moreover, monkey paw is developed on account of excessive sprinkling of 2-4-D which is a herbicide and such product was never sold to the farmer by answering ops. In this way, report is per-se falsified. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
3. Opposite party no.2 replied that in the instruction leaflet issued by op no.2 for the use of the insecticides, the answering op has clearly recommended the dosage per hectare and has declared in the liability clause that “Recommendations for product usage are based on the latest level of expertise of the manufacturers. Many factors such as, weather and soil conditions, plant type, resistance, spraying technique and other applications may influence the effect of the product. The product manufactured by op no.2 has not been got tested from the competent laboratory and the product has been passed as per IS:14937-2001 specification. The complainant has not used the product as per recommendations of op no.2.
4. Opposite party no.4 did not appear despite service and as such op no.4 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 24.12.2014.
5. The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C1, affidavit of Gurjant Singh Ex.C2, copy of cash/credit memo dated 7.8.2014 Ex.C3, copies of various other bills Ex.C4 to Ex.C7, copies of applications Ex.C8 and Ex.C9, copy of inspection report Ex.C10, copy of ledger account Ex.C11, copy of lease deed Ex.C12, copy of jamabandi for the year 2011-2012 Ex.C13 and copy of jamabandi for the year 2006-2007 Ex.C14. On the other hand, op no.2 tendered affidavit Ex.R1, copy of laboratory report Ex.R2, leaflet of Trex Ex.R3, copy of power of attrorney Ex.R4. Ops No.1 & 3 tendered affidavit Ex.R5 and documents Ex.R7 to Ex.R15.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case carefully.
7. The main dispute in this complaint is that adulterated, inferior quality and sub standard mixed pesticides was sold by the opposite party no.1 to the complainant. Due to this adulterated pesticide cotton crop of the complainant has been damaged. However, complainant has failed to prove that the pesticides were of inferior quality and mis-branded. The complainant has placed on file inspection report of Officers of Agriculture Department Ex.C10. We carefully gone through the report of the officers of Agriculture department. No sample of pesticides was sent to the Lab. for analysis. It would also not be out of place to mention here that the officers of the agriculture department have also not mentioned the khasra and killa numbers of the land which was allegedly inspected by the officers of the agriculture department. From the said report, the identity of the land can not be established and such report does not carry any evidentiary value. Holding these views we have relied upon the observation of our Hon’ble Haryana State Commission in a case Narender Kumar Vs. M/s Arora Trading Company and other 2007(2) CLT 683 in which it was clearly observed by their Lordship that when the killa and khasra numbers of land which was inspected by the Agriculture Department officer had not been mentioned in the report, the report cannot be taken into account to support the stand of the complainant. As such no finding can be recorded in favour of the complainant. Moreover, the said report does not pin point any defect in the pesticides. The report simply says that lion heart(acephate)+ Trizophos+N.P.K.19:19:19 was sprayed in the land after which whole crop of 12 acres of land developed monkey paw and that 8-10 days before the report, the dealer got sprayed double doze of the above said pesticides in the field due to which high tonicity occurred in the crop but complainant has failed to prove that dealer recommended him for spray of double doze of pesticides. According to ops, monkey paw is developed on account of excessive sprinkling of 2-4-D which is herbicide and such product was never sold to the complainant by them. The complainant has failed to controvert the pleas of the opposite parties.
8. Further, as per letter of Director Agriculture Department dated 3.1.2002, issued to all the Deputy Director in the State it was directed by the Director Agriculture that inspection team should be consisting total four members, two officer of Agriculture Department, one representative from concerned agency and one scientist from Krishi Vigyan Kendra. In the inspection report, it is not mentioned that any notice was given to the representative of the concerned agency, so this report is not conclusive and the same is defective one.
9. Thus, complainant has failed to prove his case and report of inspection team is not acceptable in the eyes of law. 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:18.1.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Member. Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
