DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 214 of 24-08-2009<br /> Decided on : 01-02-2010 <br /> <br /> Baldev Singh S/o Sh. Kehar Singh R/o Village Gehri Bara Singh, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District, Bathinda.<br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.M/s. Shree Ram Trading Company Pesticides and Seeds Dealer, Old Sabzi Mandi, Mandir Market, Maur Mandi, District Bathinda through its partner/proprietor Sarabjit Singh.<br /> 2.M/s. Swastic Pesticides Limited, 3.5 KM Bhopa Road, Muzaffar Nagar 251101 (U.P.), through its M.D./Chairman <br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. B.S. Mann, Counsel the complainant <br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Sukhpal Singh Gill, counsel for<br /> opposite party No. 2<br /> Opposite party No. 1 exparte. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> 1. In para Nos. 3,4 & 5 of the complaint, complainant has stated that he had implanted paddi crop in the land measuring 18 acres of land which included 5 acres of his own and 13 acres has been taken on contract/lease (Theka). He approached opposite party No. 1 regarding spray of pesticides on the crop and the latter suggested that the spray of two pesticides i.e. Scorpia and Activa would yield good results. On assurance of opposite party No. 1, the complainant purchased that pesticides on 1-09-2008 and 20-09-2008 for Rs. 8100/- and Rs. 3200/- and sprayed them on his paddy crop as per guidelines provided by the latter. His further case is that sprays did not yield any result. He again approached opposite party No. 1 on whose advice, he purchased pesticides worth Rs. 4885/- on 25-09-2008, spray of which did not improve the health of the paddy crop.<br /> 2. Opposite party No. 1 has suffered exparte. Therefore, the inference is that it has admitted that the complainant had purchased the above said spray on its advice.<br /> 3. In its written reply contesting opposite party No. 2 has admitted sale of pesticides to the complainant. It has also been pleaded that complainant had transplanted the “Muchhal” variety of paddy crop which was not recommended by Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana. It has also been pleaded that this variety of paddy crop was prone to various diseases. It has further been pleaded that Agricultural Department at Maur Mandi had submitted report that crop was not damaged due to spray of that pesticides. In brief, the conduct of opposite party No. 1 of not contesting this complaint has proved that pesticides in question purchased by the complainant were sprayed on his crop.<br /> 4. Opposite party No. 2 has simply pleaded that these pesticides were not meant for spray on “Muchhal” variety of paddy crops. A letter was written to the Chief Agriculture Officer, Bathinda by Agriculture Officer, Maur, that the crop was attacked by “Neckrot” disease. It has been written in this letter that “Muchhal” variety of paddy planted by the complainant was not recommended by the Punjab Agricultural University. This report is dated 15-10-2008 Ex. R-2 i.e. after spray of pesticides concerned on 15-09-2008, 20-09-2008 and 25-09-2008. Therefore, above said letter of Agriculture Officer, Maur shows that pesticides concerned did not protect the crop from “Neckrot” disease.<br /> 5. A report was also called from Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana. It has intimated this Forum vide its letter dated 14-01-2010 that there is no recommendation regarding the use of pesticides 'Scorpia' and 'Activa' against Neckrot phase of Blast disease of rice. Therefore, opposite party No. 1 sold pesticides 'Scorpia' and 'Activa' to the complainant of its own. <br /> 6. Thus, the result is that the paddy crop of the complainant was damaged due to Neckrot phase of Blast disease of rice for want of spray of any recommended pesticide. It is again reiterated that pesticides sprayed on the advice of opposite party No. 1 on the crop of complainant was not recommended to be sprayed. Therefore, opposite party No. 1 tendered a wrong advice and sold a wrong pesticides simply to sell his commodity without caring loss to the crop of the complainant. Had any other pesticide been sprayed on the crop, it might not have suffered from any disease not-with-standing the fact that “Muchhal” variety of paddy crop was not recommended to be planted by Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana.<br /> 7. Opposite party No. 2 has pleaded and placed Ex. R-2 on the record shows that samples of pesticides in question taken by Agricultural Department, Maur, has stood best of quality. Therefore, it has been pleaded that pesticides being of good quality did not cause any loss to the crop. The question of quality of the pesticides concerned is not in dispute. The dispute infact is that they were not recommended to be sprayed on the “Muchhal” variety of paddy crop. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of opposite party No. 2.<br /> 8. Result of above discussion is that opposite party No. 1 recommended and sold wrong pesticides for spray on the paddy crop of the complainant. Therefore, it is an unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint is accepted against opposite party No. 1 and dismissed qua opposite party No. 2.<br /> 9. As per revenue record, complainant is owner/lease holder (Theka) of 18 acres of land. Perhaps a judicial note of fact can be taken that these days per acre yield of the paddy crop is of the value of Rs. 30,000/-, but we take a moderate view that in this case per acre yield of paddy crop should be taken of the value of Rs. 20,000/-. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for the recovery of Rs. 3,60,000/- ( minus the value of pesticides which he purchased for his paddy crop) with interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of institution of this complaint till realisation with Rs. 5,000/- as cost.<br /> 10. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned and the file be consigned to record.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 01-02-2010 <br /> (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul)<br /> Member <br /> *ik <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />