BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.119/14.

Date of instt.: 05.06.2014. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 11.09.2015.

Krishan Kumar son of Sh. Chandgi Ram, r/o Village Khurana, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. M/s. Subhash & Company, Pesticides Dealer near Canara Bank Chhatrawas Road, Kaithal.

2. Bayer Corporation, Site SCO No.2, near Karan Chowk, Central Market, Karnal.

3. Bayer House, Hira Nandani Garden, Central Avenue Powai, Mumbai-400076.

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. S.K.Dua, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Balbir Bansal, Advocate for the opposite party.No.1.

Ops No.2 & 3 already exparte.

                       ORDER

(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased 11 units of Allantis (Brand) pesticides (Kharpatwar Nashak) from the Op No.1 vide bill No.13913 dt. 18.12.2013.  It is alleged that the complainant sprayed six units of Allantis in his six acres of land as per the instructions mentioned by the company.  It is further alleged that after spraying the pesticides in the fields, the crops were damaged to a great extent and the complainant suffered heavy loss of crops due to the spray of the pesticides in the field.  It is further alleged that the complainant made an application to the Deputy Director Agriculture, Kaithal to visit the spot and to report in respect of the damages caused to the crops of the field of complainant.  It is further alleged that on spot inspection by the team of the above-said Deptt., it was found and reported that 30-35% of wheat crop has been destroyed due to the use of said Allantis pesticide sprayed in the field of the complainant.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared before this forum, whereas Ops No.2 and 3 did not appear and were proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 21.07.2014.  Op No.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction; that the complainant is not consumer of the answering Op as the goods/pesticides have been purchased for the commercial purpose and earning profits; that the complainant has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986; that the yield of any crop depends upon the seeds of quality, the agro climatic situation, kind of soil, nature of water coupled with the irrigation facilities, supply of nutrients and effective use of fertilizer etc. and also correct agriculture practice and use of appropriate quantity of pesticides/insecticides and its proper prescribed system of spray.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.AW1/A and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 and closed evidence on 11.05.2015.  On the other hand, the Op No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.RA to Ex.RC and closed evidence on 28.05.2015.  

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.  

5.     Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint.  He argued that the complainant purchased 11 units of Allantis (Brand) pesticides (Kharpatwar Nashak) from the Op No.1 vide bill No.13913 dt. 18.12.2013.  He argued that the complainant sprayed six units of Allantis in his six acres of land as per the instructions mentioned by the company but after spraying the pesticides in the fields, the crops were damaged to a great extent and the complainant suffered heavy loss of crops due to the spray of the pesticides in the field.  He further argued that the complainant made an application to the Deputy Director Agriculture, Kaithal, Ex.A1 for report in respect of the damages caused to the crop of fields and upon the said application, a team of the department of Agriculture visited at the spot and gave the report, Ex.A3 vide which 30-35% damage to the wheat crop was found.  To refute the contention of ld. Counsel for the complainant, ld. Counsel for the Op No.1 argued that the complainant is not consumer in accordance with the provisions of Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the goods/pesticides have been purchased for the commercial purpose and earning profits.  He further argued that the team of the Agriculture Department had taken the sample of the pesticide in question of same batch number from the firm i.e. Op No.1 and sent the same to the laboratory for analysis.  He further argued that the sample was sent to Regional Pesticides Testing Laboratory for testing and as per the report of said laboratory, the sample conforms to the relevant specification in the test conducted. 

6.     In view of facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence available on the file and on consideration of rival contentions of both the parties, we found modi-cum of merit in the submissions of ld. Counsel for the Op No.1.  There is no momentum of force in the submissions of ld. Counsel for the complainant.  As per report of Regional Pesticides Testing Laboratory, the test of pesticides Mesosulfaron Methyl 3%+Iodosulfaron 0.6%Gr. was conducted and in the column of remarks, it is mentioned that The Sample conforms to the relevant specification in the test conducted.  So, in view of the said lab report, it is crystal clear that the pesticide which was sold by the Op No.1 to the complainant was not of sub-standard/inferior quality.  Therefore, the damage to the crop of complainant had been caused due to some other reason and not due to the pesticide in question.  Hence, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops.

7.     Therefore, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and dismiss the same.  No order as to costs.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.11.09.2015.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                        Member.         Member.