BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.49 of 2015
Date of Institution : 10.03.2015
Date of Decision : 20.02.2017
Amarjit Singh son of Shri Dharam Singh, resident of village Deshu Malkana, Tehsil & Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. M/S Rulia Ram Nanak Chand, Mandi Kalanwali, Tehsil & Distt. Sirsa through its partner/ proprietor.
2. G.S.P. Crops Science Pvt. Ltd. Kisan Sewa Kender, Kissan Complex 4th Mile Stone, Hisar through its Managing Director.
3. Krishi Crop Science India, 15-A, IInd Additional Mandi Sirsa through its owner.
4. Indofil Industries Ltd. Gali No.113, Plot No.2-A, Piragut, Pune through its Managing Director.
...…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. B.S. Gill, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. J.B.L. Garg, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 to 3.
Sh. Ritesh Madan, Advocate for opposite party no.4.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief is that he is owner in possession of agriculture land and is an agriculturist. Besides his own land, he had also taken land measuring 5 acres on lease basis and he totally depends upon the income of agricultural land and has no other source of income. The complainant had sowed Narma crops in his 20 acres of land. He had purchased the pesticides i.e. Ruby, pure 70 and companion for total amount of Rs.17600/- as detailed in para no.3 of the complaint from opposite party no.1 on 23.8.2014 vide bill No.1176 dated 23.8.2014. The complainant had purchased the said pesticides from op no.1 after assurance about good quality of pesticides. He sprayed the pesticides as per directions printed on the containers and as orally told by op no.1 in his 20 acres of Narma crop but after that crop of the complainant was badly damaged because the pesticides were not of the original quality and were of sub standard quality. On 28.8.2014, he telephonically informed op no.1 in this regard and that complainant has suffered huge loss upon which op no.1 told the complainant to come to him on 29.8.2014 and then representative of op no.1 admitted their fault and also admitted that they have got sprayed the substandard/ misbranded sprays upon crops of complainant due to which his crop has been damaged and advised him to spray pesticide ‘KALI’ and to give water to the crops. They assured that thereafter the crops will be OK and told him to meet the proprietor of firm and to discuss the matter with him but thereafter op no.1 did not listen him and openly declared that he is not responsible for the same. It is further averred that on 28.8.2014, he had given an application to Deputy Director Agriculture Department, Sirsa for taking necessary action against the op and copies of that application were also forwarded to Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited, Panchkula and to Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa. The crops of complainant was also inspected by Sh. Rameshwar Dass, Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Dabwali alongwith Sh. Krishan Kumar, Block Agriculture Officer, Odhan and Sh. Sanjay Sachdeva, Agriculture Development Officer, Taruwana on the application of complainant on 3.9.2014 but they in collusion with the op have given wrong reports that 15% crops have been burnt and they have also reported that these pesticides are not recommended/ approved by Haryana Agriculture University, Hisar. The complainant had sprayed the pesticides according to oral instructions of the op and there was no fault on the part of complainant. He has suffered huge loss of Rs. three lacs and also suffered mental tension and harassment. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed reply taking certain preliminary objections. It has been submitted that answering op had sold the pesticides to the complainant in duly packed and sealed original containers in the same condition in which the same were received by it from the respective manufacturing companies. The answering op has no knowledge and notice of alleged spot inspection of field of complainant by the officers of the Agriculture Department, because no notice was ever given to the answering op by the officers of Agriculture Department about alleged spot inspection. The alleged inspection report is not a legal, valid and scientific report because no square and killa numbers have been mentioned in the same. It is also submitted that in the alleges spot inspection report, it is stated that three insecticides have been mixed and then sprayed on the crop without recommendation of the Haryana Agriculture University and no defect in the insecticides has been attributed. So, the answering op cannot be held liable for any alleged loss to the crop. Remaining contents of complaint have also been denied.
3. On being impleaded, ops No.2 & 3 appeared and filed reply to the effect that answering ops manufacture high quality and high standard pesticides with brand names ‘Ruby’ and ‘Pure-70’ and they have sold and supplied the same to its distributors/ whole-sellers/ retail sellers as per their requirements. No defect has ever been reported against the above stated pesticides manufactured by answering ops. Besides it, the ops No.2 & 3 have also taken similar averments as taken by op no.1 and remaining contents of complaint have also been denied.
4. Opposite party no.4 filed reply and averred that after the purchase, the op no.4 has no control over the use of insecticide and can not even confirm or deny whether the insecticide has been sprayed in the fields or not. The op no.4 cannot say whether the complainant used the insecticide in correct way and after correct preparation and as such op no.4 cannot be held liable to any such claim. The mandatory procedure as laid down under Section 13 of Act has not been followed. The complainant has not mentioned that what is the actual yield of sown crop per acre in the said area and how much yield he get per acre. It is further submitted that function of companion fungicide is to stop the fungus. As per the guidelines of the company, 500 grams companion fungicide is used in per acre in order to control the fungus. As per the complaint, the complainant has used 8 Kg of companion fungicide on 20 acres of land whereas as per the guidelines, 8 Kg. of companion was to be used over 16 acres of land instead of 20 acres of land which makes it clear that 2 Kg. less companion has been used by complainant. In this manner, it is the complainant who himself is liable for the losses allegedly suffered by him. It is mentioned in the inspection report that on account of use of Zink and Urea, 15% of crop has been burnt. Before using the Zink and Urea, the complainant might have not taken the opinion of any expert. It is no where mentioned in the inspection report that the alleged loss is on account of use of any pesticide. It is further submitted that alleged inspection report is in violation of the provisions of law and cannot be taken into consideration. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
5. By way of evidence, complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1, copies of jamabandi for the year 2011-2012 Ex.C2, copy of letter dated 11.9.2014 Ex.C3, copy of bill Ex.C4, copy of application Ex.C5, copy of inspection report Ex.C6. On the other hand, op no.4 produced affidavit Ex.R1 and copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4. Ops No.1 & 3 produced affidavit Ex.R5 and copy of letter dated 3.1.2002 Ex.R6.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
7. In order to prove his case, the complainant has placed on file copy of inspection report dated 3.9.2014 conducted by the officers of Agriculture department. We have gone through the said report of the officers of Agriculture department. It would not be out of place to mention here that the officers of the agriculture department have not mentioned the khasra and killa numbers of the land which was allegedly inspected by them. From report Ex.C6 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 simply on the basis of a self serving affidavit when there is no evidence with respect to the less germination.
8. Further, as per letter of Director Agriculture Department dated 3.1.2002 (copy Ex.R6), issued to all the Deputy Directors in the State, it is directed by the Director Agriculture, that inspection team should be consisting with total four members, two officers of Agriculture Department, one representative from concerned seed agency and scientists from Krishi Vigyan Kendra. However, the report Ex.C6 is not conclusive and the same is defective one. No notice was issued to Ops for spot verification. It is mentioned in the report that after spray of pesticides, 15% leafs have been affected i.e. burnt and same is due to spray of excess quantity of zink and urea. It is not mentioned in the report that how much loss of crop will be caused to the complainant. Moreover, it is mentioned in the report Ex.C6 that spray of three types of pesticides after mixing them is not correct and therefore, ops cannot be held responsible for any loss to the crop of complainant.
9. So, complainant has failed to prove his case. 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:20.2.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Member. Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
