Haryana

Fatehabad

cc/73/2019

Rajinder - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Shiv Pesticide - Opp.Party(s)

R.S Bishnoi

20 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.

                                   Sh.Rajbir Singh, President.                                    Smt.Harisha Mehta, Member

                                                        Complaint Case No.73 of 2019.                                                                 Date of Instt.: 30.01.2019.                                                                          Date of Decision: 20.12.2023.

Rajinder son of Maru Ram resident of village Pirthala Tehsil Tohana District Fatehabad.

                                                                            ...Complainant

                                      Versus

 

1. M/s Shiv Pesticides, Mirch Mandi Road, Tohana Tehsil Tohana District Fatehabad through its proprietor Naresh Kumar Goyal son of Atma Ram
2. Thakar Chemicals Limited, 38/5 K.M.Stone, Jakhoda Tehsil Bahadurgarh District Jhajhar through its Manager/Director
3. The Pirthala Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society, Pirthala Tehsil Tohana District Fatehabad through its Manager/Director.
4. IFFCO MC Crop Science Private Limited, IFFCO Sadan, C-1District Centre Saket Palce, New Delhi-110017 through its Manager/Director.
5. M/s Agri Care, R.O.Plot No.228, GIDC, Estate, Panoli Branch District Gujarat through its Managing Director.

                                                                                     ...Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:                 Sh.R.S.Bishnoi, Advocate for complainant.                                                       OP No.1 exparte VOD 25.03.2019.                                                            Sh.N.D.Mittal, Advocate for Op No.2.                                                           Sh.V.K.Mehta, Advocate for Ops No.3 & 4.                                                  OP No.5 exparte VOD 10.02.2020. 

 

                                               

ORDER

Sh.Rajbir Singh, President

 

1.                          Brief facts of the present complaint are that in order to get high yield of crops, the complainant had purchased one packet (one litter) of pesticide namely Shoot 58 % SL from OP No.1 on 01.12.2018 vide invoice No.18-19/GST-1275 and further purchased 6 packets of pesticide namely “Kokoro 18021” amount to Rs.1320/- from OP No.3; that the Op No.1 & 3 both have assured that the pesticides are of good quality and will give good result being pure in nature; that the complainant sprayed the purchased pesticides in his land by following the instructions of the Ops; that after some days the complainant noticed that the pesticides did not give any effect rather caused heavy loss to his standing crop by burning the leaves of the wheat crop, therefore, he intimated all this to the Ops and on the application of the complainant, the officials of the concerned Agriculture Department visited the spot and in their report, they opined the loss to the extent of 30-40 %; that the complainant requested the Ops to make the loss good but they did not pay any heed to his requests. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. In evidence, affidavit/documents Annexure CW1/A, Annexure C1 to Annexure C8 have been placed on file.

2.                          On notice, Ops No.2 to 4 appeared and filed their separate replies.  Ops No.1 & 5 did not appear before this Commission despite issuance of notice through registered post, therefore, Ops No.1 & 5 were proceeded against exparte vide orders dated 05.03.2019 and 10.02.2020. OP No.2 in its reply has submitted that the complainant has not mentioned that as to when the spray, after mixing 1 litter of Shoot 58 % with6 packets of Kokoro 18021, was sprayed; that the collective reading of application of the complainant with the report made by the Officers of concerned department makes clear that the report is vague because it has been reported that wheat crop was burnt upto 40 % in sprouting stage; that as a matter of fact, it is not possible to quantify the alleged damage in such early stage of crop about one month after its sowing;  that one sample of Shot 58 % of same batch was taken  by SDAO and the same was permissible vide report dated01.01.2019 of State Quality Control Laboratory State Agriculture department Haryana; that the product in question was upto the mark and its spray did not damage the crop;  that the inspecting team has not considered the fact about mixing of two products by the complainant as per his sweet will; that the herbicides are chemicals and their mixing is not advisable except under expert guidance and permission of qualified expert. Other contentions have been controvtered and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                          Ops No.3 & 4 in their joint statement have taken preliminary objections such as maintainability and concealment of material facts etc. In its joint reply, these Ops have taken more or less the same grounds as taken by Op No.2 in its reply. It has been further submitted that sample of Kokoro 18021 (Piroxofop Propanyl 15 % WP) was taken by the Assistant Plant Protection Officer, Fatehabad and the same was sent to the State Laboratory, Sirsa for analysis which was found permissible as per report dated 01.01.2019; that the product in question was upto the mark being of good quality; that the complainant has not suffered any loss due to use of this product as the product in question is having good results.  In evidence, the appearing Ops have tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, Ex.RW2/B and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R6,  Annexure R2/1 to Annexure R2/4, Annexure R-3/7 to Annexure R3/10.

4.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                          Admittedly, the complainant had purchased two different herbicides vide Annexure C1 to Annexure C2.  The complainant has come with the plea that due to spraying of these products, his standing wheat crop got burnt; therefore, there are chances of loss upto 35 to 40 %. In support of his contentions he drew the attention of this Commission towards the Inspection Report Annexure C4.

6.                          On the other hand, the Ops have come with the plea that the products were of superior quality and were within the permissible limit. In support of their contentions they drew the attention of this Commission towards the lab test reports Annexure R5 and Annexure R2-2.

7.                          The complainant is mainly relied upon the Inspection Report Annexure C4 to prove the allegation qua inferior quality of insecticide but in this report Inspecting Officers have not mentioned name of the person/Op/representative of Ops in whose presence, the land was inspected. It also reveals that no prior notice before inspection was ever served to the Ops before visiting at the spot, therefore, we have no hitch to say that this report is not helpful to the case of the complainant as there is sufficient evidence on the file to show that the products in question were within the permissible limit to use as per Annexure R5 and Annexure R2-2 and it is not the case of the complainant that the said reports are fake being procured one, therefore, we have no other alternate but to believe on the same which remains un-rebutted.  It is worthwhile to mention here that the batch Numbers mentioned in the bill Annexure R3/Annexure C1 is the same as mentioned in report Annexure R5 and the report Annexure R2/1 is also of the same product which was allegedly purchased by the complainant. It is worthwhile to mention here that both the products namely Shoot and Kokoro are herbicides  and as per literature the recommended dose of herbicide Kokoro is one packet for One acre, as is mentioned in Annexure R3/9. Perusal of the case file reveals that the complainant had purchased six packets of Kokoro and one litter of herbicide Shoot and it is admitted by the complainant both these products were used in his land measuring 3 acre. This fact is enough to reach at the conclusion that the complainant has not used the prescribed dose and used more than double of the dose by mixing two herbicides for spraying in his 3 acres of land. Undisputedly, the preamble of the Consumer Protection Act is benevolent in nature but it does not give liberty to anyone who tries to take dis-advantage of the same.

8.                          Further, the onus of proof that there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Ops as the poor quality of insecticides/herbicides were sold to the complainant by Ops, lies on the complainant but in the present complaint the complainant has come with bare allegations only without leading any substantive evidence  and it is settled law that the complainant has to stand on his own legs to prove his case without taking any benefits from the weaknesses of the other party by leading concrete and authentic evidence.  

9.                          Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is no deficiency of service or any unfair trade practice, on part of the Op, so as to make it liable in this matter to any extent. Accordingly, the present complaint is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits.  In the given circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of this Commission, for perusal of parties herein. Case file be consigned to record room, as per rules, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission.                                                            Dated:20.12.2023.  

 

                                                                                     

                             (Harisha Mehta)              (Rajbir Singh)                                                             Member                              President