Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 204.
Instituted on : 27.04.2015.
Decided on : 16.05.2016.
Satish son of Shri Kashmir, resident of village Ajaib, Tehsil Meham, District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- M/s Shre Ram Agro India through its Manager, Plot No.158-E, HSIIDC, Sector-3, Karnal-132001.
- New Nain Khad Bhandar through its Manager, village Ajaib, Tehsil Meham, District Rohtak.
- M/s Tirupati Khad Bhandar, Anaj Mandi, Julana, Distt. Jind through its Prop.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.V.S.Ahlawat, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite party no.1 in exparte.
Sh.M.L.Wadhwa, Advocate for the opposite party No.2.
Sh.Jaiveer Singh, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he is farmer and is cultivating the land by taking the land on lease and he took 2 acres of land from Shri Braham alias Balraj measuring 80 kanals 13 marlas situated in revenue estate of village Ajaib on lease and the crop of wheat was cultivated by the complainant on Killa Nos. 136/2 and 3. It is averred that complainant sown the crop of wheat over the land and to protect the crop, complainant purchased three packets of the herbicides from the opposite party no.2 manufactured by opposite party no.1 against consideration of Rs.750/- on 19.01.2015 vide receipt no. 838 dated 19.01.2015 which he sprayed over the crops but the tiny plants of wheat developed yellow colour in place of green colour and the plants began to shrink. The complainant informed the opposite parties regarding the affect of the herbicides on wheat plants and the opposite party sent a team for verification and the team members assured the complainant that the herbicides spray was defective and the complainant shall be compensated on account of loss suffered due to non growing of the wheat plants. But lastly the opposite parties refused to compensate the complainant. It is averred that the complainant also informed to the Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer Rohtak who constituted a committee consisting of SNSPP, ADO and BAO Meham who duly visited and verified the affect of the herbicides on the wheat crop sown by the complainant and gave their report to the effect that that two acres of land sown by the complainant was completely damaged i.e. total loss. It is averred that the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.180000/- on account of the lease amount paid by him to the owner and damages of the crop. It is averred that the said act of opposite parties of selling the inferior quality of product is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant requested the opposite parties to compensate him but they had refused to compensate the complainant. Complainant also served a legal notice dated 09.03.2015 but any heed was not paid. As such it is prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay an amount of Rs.180000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice, the opposite party no.1 did not appear despite the fact that notice was sent through registered post and as such opposite party no.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 09.06.2015 of this Forum. However opposite party no.2 & 3 appeared and filed their separate written statement. Opposite party no.2 in its reply has submitted that it is wrong that complainant sown the peddy crops in his fields in 2 acres or the complainant has spent an amount of Rs.180000/- on cultivation as alleged. It is further submitted that the opposite party as per demand and choice of complainant sold out the same to the complainant in sealed conditions which the answering opposite party had purchased the same from its distributor M/s Tirupati Khad Bhandar Anaj Mandi Julana vide bill no.9621 dated 15.01.2015. It is averred that the answering opposite party is only retailer of same. Alleged medicines has been manufactured and distributed by its distributor i.e. opposite party no.1. It is averred that the complainant suffered loss of his crops due to other reasons. It is averred that the complainant has not supplied the revenue record nor any assessment of loss has been submitted by the complainant nor any expert report which shows that the alleged damage has been caused to which reason. It is averred that no alleged inspection has been made in the presence of answering opposite party nor any notice ever served to answering opposite party, no specific date on which the alleged inspection was made. It is denied that the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.150000/- per acre as alleged. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Opposite party no.3 in its reply has submitted that opposite party no.3 had purchased the alleged pesticide from the opposite party no.1 vide Invoice No.HR845 dated 02.12.2014 and the same had been sold to the opposite party no.2 in sealed condition. It is averred that the application moved by complainant, if any, to the concerned official of the Deputy Director of agriculture, Rohtak was on false and concocted facts. It is averred that no alleged inspection has been made in the presence of answering opposite party nor any notice ever served to answering opposite party. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.P1, documents Ex.P2 to Ex.P12 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party no.2 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.RW2/B to Ex.RW2/C and has closed his evidence. Opposite party no.3 in its evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A, document Ex.RW1 and has closed his evidence.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
8. In the present case it is not disputed that as per receipt Ex.P2, complainant had purchased 3 packets of herbicides from the opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.750/-. It is also not disputed that as per receipt Ex.P7 and affidavit Ex.P8, the land has been given on lease by Sh.Brahm s/o Bani Singh to the complainant and copy of mutation register Ex.P11 is also placed on record. It is also not disputed that as per application Ex.P3 moved by the complainant and other applicants they had sprayed the alleged herbicide in their field and their crop was damaged/burnt. As per copy of inspection report Ex.P4, it is observed that a committee consisting of SNSPP, ADO and BAO Meham duly visited the fields of the applicants and gave their report to the effect that two acres of land sown by the complainant was completely damaged due to spray of medicine purchased from the opposite party no.2. On the other hand, opposite party no.2 has submitted that it had purchased the same from opposite party no.3 vide bill no.9621 dated 15.01.2015 and had sold out the same to the complainant in sealed condition. It is further contended that no notice regarding inspection of fields of the complainant was given to the opposite parties and as such the report is not legally sustainable in the eyes of law. Opposite party no.3 has also submitted that it had purchased the same from opposite party no.1 vide Invoice No.HR845 dated 02.12.2014 and the same had been sold to the opposite party no.2 in sealed condition.
9. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that due to spray of the herbicides in two acres of wheat crop, which was purchased by the complainant from the opposite party no.2 sold by opposite party no.3 to opposite party no.2 and manufactured by opposite party no.1, the crop of the complainant was totally burnt and this fact is established by the report Ex.C4. Regarding the plea taken by the opposite parties that the crop was destroyed by some other reason, opposite parties have not placed on record any other document and hence not proved. Regarding the loss of crop of the complainant due to defective herbicides sold by the opposite parties, we have placed reliance upon the law cited in II(2015)588(NC) titled as Seed Works International Vs. Nampelly Sudhakar etc. whereby Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi has held that: “Defective Seed-Low germination- Nothing stopped OPs from applying for test and analysis and sending requisite sample on their own-Unfair trade practice proved”, as per III(2014)CPJ196(Hr.) titled as Shakti Vardhak Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajpal & Ors. Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, Panchkula has held that: “Purchase of seeds-Defects-Loss of crops-Deficiency in service-compensation claimed-District Forum allowed complaint-Hence appeal-Contention, reports submitted by Deputy Director was not as per guidelines issued by Director of agriculture-Not accepted-Constitution of inspection team as per letter of Director of Agriculture and not associating dealer of seeds was not the fault of farmers at all for which they should not be allowed to suffer”, as per II(2008)CPJ 165(NC) titled Ankur Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kondabrolu Hasen Rao & Ors., Hon’ble National Commission has held that: “Agriculture-Seeds-Defective growth of plants noticed-Report of Horticulture Officer produced in support- No expert report produced to counter report of Horticulture Officer- Quantum of compensation awarded by Forum, reasonable, upheld-Revision dismissed” and as per 2008(2)CLT 668 titled India Seed House Vs. Ramjilal Sharma & Anr., Hon’ble National Commission has held that: “It is not expected from every buyer of the seeds to set apart some quantity of seeds for testing on the presumption that seeds would be defective and he would be called upon to prove the same through laboratory testing-A senior officer of the Government after visiting the field and inspecting the crop given report under his hand and seal certifying the seeds were defective”. Regarding the manufacturing defect we have placed reliance upon the law cited in 2014(3)CLT178 titled as Krishanpal Singh Vs. Tata Motors & others whereby Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi has held that: “Whenever there is a complaint of manufacturing defect, it should be the bounden duty of the people, like Ops to appoint their own experts who are always available at their beck and call to prove that the car does not suffer from any manufacturing defect” and as per 2006(1) 537 titled Raja Mohammad Vs. Dhanabagyam & Anr. Hon’ble Tamil Nadu State Commission, Chennai has held that: “In the event of its being found that there was manufacturing defect and the claimant would be entitled to the relief, there could be an award only against the manufacturer and not against the dealer”. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts & circumstances of the case, it is observed that there was manufacturing defect in the alleged herbicide and the manufacturer i.e. opposite party no.1 did not appear before the Forum to contest the version taken by the complainant in his complaint and as such it is presumed that opposite party no.1 has nothing to say in the matter. Therefore, all the version put forth by the complainant regarding manufacturing defect in the alleged herbicides stands proved and opposite party no.1 i.e. manufacturer is liable to compensate the complainant.
10. Now the question arises as to what amount of compensation be awarded to the complainant? In this regard it is observed that the complainant had sown the seeds in the month of January 2015 and sprayed the herbicides in 2 acres of wheat crop purchased from the opposite party no.2 and at that time the rate of one quintal wheat was approximately Rs.1450/- and in one acre of land approx.15 quintal wheat can be produced. Hence the complainant suffered a loss of crop in 2 acres i.e. 15x2=30 quintal @ Rs.1450/- per quintal. Accordingly the total loss of crops in 2 acres of land comes to Rs.1450/- x 30 = Rs.43500/-. It is also observed that in one acre of land, cost of cultivation charges amounting to Rs.1600/- per acre, cost of seeds Rs.1600/- per acre and fertilizer amounting to Rs.1400/- per acre would be suffice to meet out the ends of justice. Cost of medicine per bill Ex.P2 is Rs.750/-. Accordingly the complainant suffered a total loss of Rs.43500/-(on account of loss of crops) + Rs.3200/-(1600/- x 2) on account of cultivation charges, +Rs.3200/-(1600/-x 2) on account of seeds+ Rs.2800/-(1400/- x 2) on account of fertilizer + Rs.750/-(cost of medicine) i.e. total amounting to Rs.53450/-.
11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that opposite party No.1 i.e. manufacturer shall pay the compensation of Rs.53450/- (Rupees fifty three thousand four hundred fifty only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 27.04.2015 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3500/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall carry further interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of decision. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
12. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
13. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
16.05.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
…………………………….
Ved Pal, Member
