THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 39 of 2010.
Date of Institution: 19.01.2010
Date of Decision: -19.05.2016.
Kalam Singh son of Shri Kokanram, resident of village Kharkari Makhvan, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- M/s Shankardass Jagdish Kumar, 119 New Anaj Mandi, Bhiwani, Lohar Bazar (Dealer) through its Manager.
- Dolphin (Insecticide) Manufactured by:-
GSP Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. 551 Phase II G.I.D. Kathwada Odhav Ahmedabad 382430 Gujarat.
- MIG Alphamethin (Insecticide) Manufactured by:-
Devidayal (Sales) Limited an ISO 9001-2000 Company) having its Registered Office at : REAY ROAD Mumbai 400010 FAC: DEROL KALOL (DISTPMS) 389330 India.
…...OPs.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member
Present:- Shri Sumit Jangra, Advocate for complainant
Shri Sanesh Chaudhary, Advocate for
Ops no. 1 & 2.
Shri Rajesh Punia, Advocate for OP no. 3.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he had purchased the pesticides from OP no. 1 vide bill dated 05.08.2009 for the treatment of tomato crops and all the pesticides after mixing were sprayed on the tomato crops. It is alleged that after the spray of the said pesticides the crop of the tomato was perished. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such, he has to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.He
2. On appearance, OP no. 1 has filed written statement alleging therein that the answering respondent used to purchase the pesticide from Ops no. 2 & 3 and which he used to purchase, he sells the same as it is to the customers. It is submitted that the said pesticide was in a good condition and the answering respondent has sold lot of goods without any complaint. It is submitted that there is no laboratory report showing that the said pesticide was of a lower quality of the same was harmful to the crops in any way. It is submitted that the HDO has mentioned in his report dated 01.04.2009 that the crops were damaged due to the said pesticide but by over-ruling the said opinion of the HDO, the DHO and the Scientists of Krishi Vigyan Kendar, Bhiwani, in his report dated 05.05.2009 has mentioned that the crops were damaged due to Jhhulsa Rog. It is submitted that the complainant was not disclosed as the what type of insecticide/pesticide had been used earlier. It is submitted that the complainant has not shown any gap in the use of spray of pesticide. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 1 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. OP No. 2 on appearance also filed separate written statement alleging therein that the complainant failed to disclose the material facts regarding use of water, quantity of pesticide kind of spray and time gap, which are necessary ingredients to arrive at the conclusion regarding deterioration of tomato crops. It is submitted that the complainant did not disclose as to what quantity of pesticide/insecticide was put in the one tank. It is submitted that the complainant is not using the pesticide in accordance with the instructions mentioned in the leaflet which complained in the each package of the pesticide. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 2 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. OP No. 3 on appearance also filed separate written statement alleging therein that the complainant is not the consumer of the answering respondent as he never purchased the pesticide manufactured by the answering respondent. It is submitted that the Inspector who alleged inspected the crops of the complainant was not competent to inspect and to make the report. It is submitted that the complainant failed to produce the bills regarding the amount spent on purchasing pesticides, fertilizers etc. and as such he has failed to prove the losses as alleged in the complaint. It is submitted that the answering respondent is not the manufacturer of the pesticides mentioned in the bill. It is submitted that as per alleged inspection report it is not clear how the crops of the complainant has been damaged. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering respondent and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
5. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has placed on record documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-8 alongwith supporting affidavit.
6. In reply thereto, Ops has placed on record documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-6 alongwith supporting affidavits.
7. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
8. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of his complaint. He submitted that the complainant had purchased the pesticides from OP no. 1 vide bill dated 05.08.2009 Annexure C-1 for the treatment of tomato crops and all the pesticides after mixing were sprayed on the tomato crops. After the spray of the said pesticides the crop of the tomato was perished. In support of his contention he referred the report dated 01.04.2009 Annexure C-2 of Horticulture Development Officer, Tosham (HDO) and photographs Annexure C-4 to Annexure C-8.
9. Learned counsel for Opposite Parties reiterated the contents of their reply. The counsel for the Ops no. 1 & 2 submitted that the pesticides sold by the complainant were not manufactured by OP no. 1 and the OP no. 1 sells the same to the customers and the said pesticides are manufactured by Ops no. 2 & 3. He submitted that no test report of laboratory has been obtained by the complainant to prove that the said pesticides were of inferior quality and were harmful to the crops. He further submitted that the complainant has not produced the khasra girdawari to show the killa number in which the crops of tomato was sowed. The HDO, Tosham has not mentioned in his report dated 01.04.2009 the killa number of the fields which were inspected by him. No notice of inspection of the field of the complainant was given to HDO, Tosham. The counsel for the OP no. 1 referred the report of District Horticulture Officer, Bhiwani (DHO)bearing serial No. 184 dated 05.05.2009 Annexure R-2 wherein it has been mentioned that the fields of the complainant was inspected by DHO, Bhiwani and other specialist from Krishi Vigyan Kendar, Bhiwani on 06.04.2009 and it was found by them that the crop of tomato has been perished due to “Jhhulsa Rog”. In support of his contention he also referred the other report no. 154 dated 24.04.2009 Annexure R-3. He has also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula in case of Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. Versus Ajaib Singh & another III (2012) CPJ 123.
10. Learned counsel for OP no. 3 submitted that no notice of the inspection of the field of the complainant was given by the HDO, Tosham to the OP no. 3. He further submitted that the pesticides MIG 10 used by the complainant is not meant for tomato crops rather it is meant for cotton crops which is clearly mention in the pamphlet supplied with the pesticides. The complainant has not followed the instructions for the use of the pesticides.
11. In the context of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record. The complainant has blamed that the pesticides purchased by him from the OP no. 1 were sprayed by him on the tomato crops and as result of which the crops of tomato was perished. On the other side the counsel for the Ops no. 1 & 2 has contended that the entire crop of tomato was suffered from “Jhhulsa Rog” which is evident from the report dated 05.05.2009 of DHO Bhiwani and report dated 24.04.2009 of DHO Bhiwani, as Annexure R-1 & Annexure R-3 respectively. It is not the case of the complainant that the pesticides purchased by him from OP no. 1 were of inferior quality/duplicate or spurious. No laboratory analysis as envisaged under Section 13 (1) (c ) of the Consumer Protection Act has been obtained by the complainant to prove that the pesticides purchased by him from OP no. 1 were of inferior quality and were harmful. The District Horticulture Officer, Bhiwani in his report no. 184 dated 05.05.2009 clearly mention that a joint inspection was done on 06.04.2009 of the field of the complainant and it was found that the crop of tomato was perished due to “Jhhulsa Rog”. The another report of DHO, Bhiwani no. 154 dated 24.04.2009 has mentioned that a joint inspection was conducted in village Chang and it was found that the crop of tomato has been damaged due to “Jhhulsa Rog” and the farmers were advised to treat the crop by pesticides.
12. From the abovesaid both reports dated 05.05.2009 and 24.04.2009, it can be concluded that at the relevant time the crop of tomato damaged due to “Jhhulsa Rog” in the concerned area. Considering the facts of the case, the complainant has failed to adduce any cogent evidence to prove that the pesticides purchased by him from the OP no. 1 were of inferior quality or spurious. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant fails and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 19.05.2016. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Ansuya Bishnoi),
Member.
