BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 238 of 2018                                                              

                                                   Date of Institution         :   25.09.2018

                                                          Date of Decision   :    13.08.2019

Kishori Lal son of Shri Shera Ram, resident of village Bani, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.

                      ……Complainant.

                                      Versus.

1. M/s Zamindara Trading Company, Main Bazar, Bansi, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa (Hr.), through its Proprietor.

2. Hyderabad Chemicals Limited, Lane IVA, Phase-II, SIDCO Industrial Complex, Bari Brahmna, Jammu- 181 133 (J&K), through its Manager.

...…Opposite parties.

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

Before:        SH. R.L.AHUJA……………………….PRESIDENT

          SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……… ……MEMBER.     

Present:       Smt. Parmeshwari Legha, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Amit Goyal, Advocate for opposite party No.1.

Sh. Anil Bansal, Advocate for opposite party no.2.     

ORDER

                   Case of complainant in brief is that complainant is an agriculturist by profession and he owns and possess his land in village Bani, Tehsil Rania District Sirsa which is comprised in Khewat No.49, Sq. No.83, killa No.18/2(3-16), 19(8-0), 22/1(7-11), 23/1(3-17), Sq. No.86, Killa No.2 (8-0), 3/1(3-12), total 34 kanal 16 marlas as per jamabandi for the year 2011-2012. In Kharif 2017 crop season, the complainant had sown Narma crop in his aforesaid land. The complainant put his hard labour and applied the requisite amount of fertilizers, irrigation etc. to his crop as required from time to time. The plants gain good height and he was expecting a good yield. On 18.7.2017 the complainant visited op no.1 and asked for good quality pesticides for protecting his narma crop and the op no.1 supplied two type of pesticides one with brand name crux and other with brand name as Prime, both manufactured by op no.2. The complainant purchased two containers of above pesticide for a sum of Rs.1734/- vide bill no.4 dated 18.7.2017 on the assurance of op no.1 about the quality of pesticides. That the complainant sprayed the pesticides as told by op no.1 on his narma crop, however, after spray the narma crop of complainant got damaged and about 60-70 (it should be percent) crop of complainant was ruined. The complainant approached the op no.1 and lodged a protest about supplying of inappropriate pesticides to him, but the op no.1 did not pay any heed to the same and refused to do anything in the matter. It is further averred that then complainant moved an application to the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa for inspection of his field and the officers of the Agriculture Department visited his field on 7.9.2017 and reported about the loss to the narma crop of complainant from 40-50% to 60-70%. That above loss to the crop of complainant has been caused due to supply of misbranded pesticides and the prime pesticide had expired in 7-17, but even then the op sold the same to the complainant on 18.7.2017 which shows that op intentionally sold pesticide which had already expired. That the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.2,20,000/- on account of loss of his narma crop and thus the ops are liable to indemnify the complainant. That the complainant approached the ops and requested them to make good the losses suffered by him but the ops did not pay any heed to the same. Ultimately, the complainant got served a legal notice upon the ops on 3.7.2018 but of no use. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite parties appeared. Op no.1 filed reply taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainable, cause of action and locus standi, concealment of true and material facts, jurisdiction, that complainant has not furnished the laboratory test report of expert about alleged defects in pesticides in question. On merits, it is submitted that complainant has not produced relevant records of his land and crops. The complainant has enclosed jamabandi of his land of village Bacher for the year 2011-12, which is contrary to his assertions mentioned in the complaint. The complainant is required to prove his assertions by producing cogent and convincing evidence. It is further submitted that exact expiry date of Prime pesticide was 30.7.2017 not 7-12 alleged. The exact date of expiry of prime has not been intentionally mentioned by complainant. The op no.1 sells the sealed tin boxes of pesticides of op no.2 as it is as received from op no.2 The answering op has sold huge quantity of Crux and Prime in Sirsa and other Districts of Haryana and never received any other complaint from anybody. The complainant has not mentioned that when and how he has used the pesticides, what type of seed of narma he has used. There may be many factors of any alleged loss of crops viz. wrong use of pesticides, inferior seed and fertilizers, quality of soil and water, technique and time of sowing the crops etc. It is further submitted that answering op does not know about the alleged inspection of officers of agriculture department on 7.9.2017 to the fields of complainant. The answering op was never informed by complainant regarding any such inspection. The alleged inspection was made by Agriculture Department, Sirsa at the back of op no.1, so the alleged report is not binding upon answering op. Moreover, the report is quite vague and has no meaning at all in the eyes of law.  Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

3.                OP no.2 also resisted the complaint on similar pleas as that of op no.1. It is also submitted that from perusal of inspection report Memo No.7566 dated 20.9.2017 of Agriculture Department, Sirsa, it reveals that crop of complainant was affected by Bandar Panja, which in fact never occurs due to use of these pesticides. The answering op manufacturers top quality of pesticides and maintain the standard as well. All type of pesticides are marketed after internal quality analysis and laboratory tests. The said pesticides are registered brands under Insecticides Act, 1968 and are approved by Govt. of India, Ministry of Agriculture as well. All assertions made by complainant are imaginary. There may be many factors of any alleged loss of crops. Otherwise too, complainant himself admits that plants gain good height. It is further submitted that answering op was never informed by complainant regarding any inspection of Agriculture department, Sirsa at any point of time. The alleged inspection was made by officers of Agriculture Department, Sirsa in connivance with the complainant, so the report is not binding upon the answering op. With these averments, dismissal of complaint prayed for.

4.                The parties then led their respective evidence. The complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, tax invoice Ex.C2, copy of letter Ex.C3 and copy of inspection report Ex.C4, copy of application moved to Tehsildar, Rania Ex.C5, copy of legal notice Ex.C6 and postal receipt Ex.C7. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit of Sh. Ram Kumar proprietor of op no.1 Ex.R1, affidavit of Sh. V.K. Kaushik, Area Sales Manager of op no.2 Ex.R2, reply to legal notice Ex.R3, instructions Ex.R4 and copies of certificate of analysis Ex.R5, Ex.R6, copy of instructions Ex.R7 and copies of certificate of analysis Ex.R8 to Ex.R10.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

6.                Learned counsel for the complainant has strongly contended that it is proved case of the complainant that he is owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 34 kanals 16 marlas. In Kharif, 2017, he had sown crop of Narma in his field and put his hard labour and applied the requisite amount of fertilizers, irrigation etc. as required from time to time. The complainant in order to make his crop disease free purchased pesticides namely Crux bearing batch no.2103 with date of expiry as 1-18 and Prime bearing batch no.2069 with date of expiry as 7-17 for a sum of Rs.1734/-, but however, the crop of complainant was damaged due to spray of misbranded/ sub standard pesticides purchased from op no.1 which was manufactured by op no.2. The complainant is entitled for the compensation as prayed for.

7.                On the other hand, learned counsel for op no.1 has contended that op no.1 purchased the pesticides crux and prime in sealed packets from op no.2 which were sold by him to the complainant. There is no complaint against op no.1 qua any substandard or misbranded pesticides sold by him. The damage to the crop of complainant is not due to alleged misbranded spray. The complainant has failed to prove that pesticide which was purchased from op no.1 was substandard or misbranded. The report of the agriculture department is not conclusive proof that damage to the crop was due to use of pesticides which was purchased from op no.1.

8.                Learned counsel for op no.2 has also strongly contended that complainant has failed to lead any cogent and convincing evidence in order to prove his allegations in the complaint qua the fact that pesticides purchased by complainant from op no.1 and manufactured by op no.2 was defective and affected the standing crop of the complainant. The complainant had purchased pesticides namely crux, expiry of which was valid up to January 2018. He also purchased prime pesticides from op no.1 manufactured by op no.2 with alleged expiry on 7-17 whereas its expiry date was 30.7.2017. The report of the agricultural department is not reliable and trustworthy since inspection was not conducted by the officers of agricultural department in presence of ops, nor any notice was served upon ops before inspection. The officers of the agricultural department have not given their finding that pesticides used by complainant was substandard, defective and misbranded. The complainant has relied upon report of the agricultural department which is vague. The sample of prime was not taken as expiry date of same was already lapsed and sample of another pesticide Crux was sent to the laboratory for analysis and as per report Ex.R10, the same was found to be permissible. So, the ops are not liable from any corner for their any alleged lapses or defective pesticides. He has relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Devender Kumar & Ors. vs. Amsons Lab Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. IV 2014 CPJ 575.

9.                We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the record as well as judgment relied upon by learned counsel for op no.2.

10.              It is case of the complainant that complainant is owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 34 kanals 16 marlas and he had sown crop of Narma in Kharif, 2017. In order to protect his crop from any disease, the complainant purchased two pesticides namely Crux and Prime from op no.1 which was manufactured by op no.2 for consideration of Rs.1734/-. As per allegations of complainant, his crop was damaged due to use of these pesticides as it was misbranded, substandard and defective.

11.              It is the legal obligation of the complainant to prove allegations against the ops by leading cogent and convincing evidence. The complainant in order to prove his allegations in the complaint approached the agricultural department and the officers of agricultural department inspected the land of complainant and submitted their report Ex.C3. The perusal of this report Ex.C3 reveals that Quality Control Inspector, Sirsa has not specified in his report that pesticides used by complainant was defective, substandard and misbranded. The sample of crux pesticides was taken by the officers of the department which was sent to the Government laboratory for analysis which after analysis issued report Ex.R10. The perusal of this report reveals that sample of crux pesticide was found to be permissible. The sample of pesticide prime was not taken and not sent to the laboratory. The sample which was sent to the laboratory was found to be permissible. So, it appears that pesticides allegedly used by complainant was neither defective nor sub standard. In these circumstances, we cannot hold ops guilty and responsible for the pesticides sold to the complainant.

12.              In view of above, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.             

Announced in open Forum.     Member                              President,

Dated:13.08.2019.                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                    Redressal Forum, Sirsa.