BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.     

                                                                        Consumer Complaint no. 03 of 2016                                                                                                                    Date of Institution    :    1.1.2016

                                                                        Date of Decision      :   08.03.2017 

Satnam Singh, aged about 39 years son of Shri Hazara Singh, resident of village Kariwala, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa (Haryana).

                      ……Complainant.

                                                Versus.

M/S Zamindara Pesticides, Tibbi Adda, Ellenabad, through its proprietor/ partners 1. Rakhvir Singh son of Satpal Singh resident of Partap Nagar, Dera Assa Singh, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa and 2. Kuljeet Singh son of Shri Pala Singh Cheema, resident of village Amritsar Kalan, Tehsil Ellenabad, District Sirsa.

...…Opposite party.

                        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:           SH.S.B.LOHIA …………………………..PRESIDENT

                    SH.RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……….MEMBER.

Present:          Sh. Inderjit Singh, Advocate for complainant.

           Sh. Manminder Singh, Advocate for opposite party.

ORDER

                        Case of the complainant, in brief is that he is an agriculturist and used to cultivate the land on contract basis. He has obtained land measuring 6 acres 2 kanal belonging to Sh. Mohkam Singh son of Sh. Daya Singh, resident of village Kariwala, since deceased on contract basis and is paying contract money to his widow as is clear from the receipt issued by her in his favour. The complainant sowed paddy crop in the above said land. It is further alleged that complainant purchased pesticide for paddy crop from opposite party against cash payment of Rs.28,775/- vide various bills as mentioned in para no.2 of the complaint. It was assured by the opposite party that pesticide and fungicide i.e. sheetmar, kilarsuper etc. will give best result and will protect the crop and will have no bad effect on crop. As per instructions of op, the complainant sprayed the above said pesticides in the crop sowed in the above said land with proper care and hard labour and provided proper irrigation from time to time. However, inspite of serious efforts of complainant, the growth of crop remained unequal and put adverse impact on crop and destroyed the crop and it was clear that the op sold the sub standard pesticides to the complainant. Due to this reason, the complainant suffered huge losses of his crop. The complainant met opposite party in this regard and after visiting his fields, the op assured him for payment of suitable compensate ion but thereafter did not pay any compensation to him. The complainant moved an application to Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer narrating the true facts and on his application, Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Ellenabad alongwith team visited the field of complainant and submitted inspection report in which loss of crop of complainant was assessed to the extent of 40-50% and as per market rate the said loss in terms of money comes to Rs.2,25,000/-. The complainant is entitled to recover the said amount from the op alongwith other charges of Rs.1,00,000/- for sowing the crop. The complainant approached the op and requested to pay the above said amount but all in vain and op postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately has refused to admit the claim of complainant. Hence, this complaint.

2.                     On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections that present complaint is not maintainable in the present form and that complainant is not a consumer of the answering op in any manner because he has not purchased any pesticide from answering op at any point of time; that present complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non joinder of the necessary parties as Kuljeet Singh son of Pala Singh, r/o Amritsar Kalan is wrongly shown as proprietor/partner of M/s Jamindara Pesticides, Ellenabad and said Kuljeet Singh has no concern or connection with the said firm. He had no dealings with the complainant at any point of time. Ansering op Raghubir Singh is the sole proprietor of the firm and that complainant has not impleaded the manufacturing company in the complaint which is a necessary party to the present complaint. Preliminary objections regarding cause of action and suppression of material facts have also been raised. On merits, it has been submitted that story put forth by complainant regarding taking of land on lease basis is concocted. Mohkam Singh son of Daya Singh had died on 30.9.2011 and question of giving his land to the complainant on lease basis does not arise at all. It has been further submitted that complainant never purchased any pesticide from answering op and the bills etc. mentioned in the complaint are false and fabricated. There is no stamp or seal of the answering op’s firm on the bills. The bills are also not having any letter head or receipt of answering op which shows that bills etc. do not pertain to answering op. It has been further submitted that no official of Agricultural Department visited the fields of complainant in the presence of answering op and the report, if any is also false and against the actual and factual position. The detail and description of the land has not been mentioned in the report. The complainant has no any agricultural land and has not sowed any paddy crop. The loss, if any allegedly occurred to the complainant, the same may be result of his wrong doings, bad weather or from the sub standard seed etc. It has been further submitted that on 21.10.2015 and 3.11.2015, the Analyst of Quality Control Laboratory, Insecticides Sirsa took the samples of pesticides from the answering op and material of above pesticides/ insecticides was found permissible to be used. Remaining contents of complaint have also been denied.

3.                     By way of evidence, complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C14. On the other hand, op produced affidavit of Raghubir Singh Ex.R1, affidavit of Smt. Sandeep Kaur wife of Mohkam Singh Ex.R2 and copies of documents Ex.R3 to Ex.R11.

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

5.                       The complainant in order to prove his case has placed on file inspection report of Agriculture Departmen as Ex.C14. We carefully gone through the report of the officers of Agriculture department. It would also not be out of place to mention here that the officers of the agriculture department have not mentioned the khasra and killa numbers of the land which was allegedly inspected by them. From the said report, the identity of the land can not be established and such report does not carry any evidentiary value. Holding these views we have relied upon the observation of our Hon’ble Haryana State Commission in a case Narender Kumar Vs. M/s Arora Trading Company and other 2007(2) CLT 683 in which it was clearly observed by their Lordship that when the killa and khasra numbers of land which was inspected by the Agriculture Department officer had not been mentioned in the report, the report cannot be taken into account to support the stand of the complainant. As such no finding can be recorded in favour of the complainant.

6.                     Further more, the version of the complainant that he obtained 6 acres 2 kanal land belonging to Sh. Mohkam Singh son of Daya Singh on contract basis in which he had sowed paddy crop and sprayed pesticides in question is also in doubt. The complainant in order to prove said version has placed on file receipt Ex.C4 allgedly issued by Smt. Sandeep Kaur widow of Mohkam Singh but in the affidavit of Smt. Sandeep Kaur Ex.R2 produced by opposite party, she has testified that her husband Mohkam Singh died on 30.9.2011 and prior to his death he was cultivating the land belonging to him and after his death his land was inherited by her with others and from that day the land is being cultivated by herself and her family. She had not given her land on lease basis to the complainant Satnam Singh for the period 2015-2016 and receipts, if any, produced by complainant are not related to the period 2015-2016 and not related to her land. As such the affidavit of Smt. Sandeep Kaur produced by op raises serious doubt upon the version of complainant and has not been proved by him by way of reliable and cogent evidence.  

7.                     Further, as per letter of Director Agriculture Department dated 3.1.2002 issued to all the Deputy Director in the State it was directed by the Director Agriculture that inspection team should be consisting total four members, two officer of Agriculture Department, one representative from concerned agency and scientists from KGK/KVK/ HAU. In the inspection report, it is not mentioned that any notice was given to the representative of the concerned agency, so this report is not conclusive and the same is defective one.

8.                     Thus, complainant has failed to prove his case and report of inspection team is not acceptable in the eyes of law. Accordingly the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.                                                            President,

Dated:8.3.2017.                                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                        Member.                              Redressal Forum, Sirsa.