Haryana

Ambala

CC/119/2011

UDHAM SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S ZIMIDARA SEEDS - Opp.Party(s)

S.C.BAKSHI

21 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 119 of 2011

                                                          Date of Institution         : 15.04.2011

                                                          Date of decision             : 21.12.2016

1.       Udham Singh aged 42 years son of Sh. Mehar Singh  

2.       Mani Singh aged 52 year son of

3.       Paramjit Singh aged 45 years son of Sh. Mehar Singh,

4.       Smt. Rattan Kaur aged 70 years wife of Late Sh. Mehar Singh, all residents of Village Barnala, P.O. Dhankaur, Tehsil and District Ambala..

……. Complainant.

1.       M/s Zimidara Seeds Store, Spatu Road, Ambala City through it prop.

2.       Bharat Insecticides Limited, Regd. Office 1506 Vikram Tower, Rajindera          Palace, New Dehli 110006 through Managing Directors.  

 ….…. Respondents.

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER                           

 

Present:       Sh. S. C. Bakshi, counsel for the complainant.

                   Sh. Sandeep Mishra, counsel for the Ops.

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that on 17.01.2011 vide cash Memo no. 6472, the complainant purchased 12 packets of PIROXOFOP-PROPANLY 15% WP Trade Name “Columbus” manufactured by Opp. Party no. 2 from M/s Zimidara Seeds Store, spatu road, Ambala City, the OP no. 1 authorized dealer of the OP No. 2 at the rate of 380/- per packet is equal to Rs. 4200/- bearing batch no. KTC0220084 dated if 06.12.2010 date of Expiry 05.12.2012 and the complainant purchased the said PIROXOFO PROPANYL 15% WP for Spraying on their standing wheat crops to destroy the weeds in order to have good wheat crop from the fields. Accordingly, the whole of said 12 packets of anti weeds medicine was sprayed by use of spray pump, on their standing wheat crops, but the weeds were not destroyed thereby implying that the said PIROXOFOP-PROPANYL 15% WP purchased by the complainant from OP no. 1 was ineffective as it did not destroy the weeds from the standing wheat crops. Further submitted that the whole purpose of spraying the above said anti-weed medicine PIROXOFOP-PROPANYL 15% WP “COLUMBUS” has been defeated due to which the complainant have suffered loss of crop besides physical hardship and mental pain and agony despite complying with manufacturer’s instructions. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed written statement submitting that the weedicides, fungicides, insecticides, pesticides etc. manufactured by the OP no. 2 are of very high quality and give desired results, if applied properly in accordance with the instruction printed on the container and the products, particularly Columbus manufactured by the Op No. 2 are distributed in a number of States and there have been no complaints of any kind whatsoever. Further submitted that “Columbus” is one of the products of the Op no. 2 which is widely used by the farmer in the country and said product has always proved to be very effective in getting grid of weeds and has never caused any damage to the crops. Further submitted that samples of the said product taken by insecticides Inspectors from time to time have been found to be of desired quality and have never been found to be misbranded and the complainant have not lodged any complaint with the insecticides Inspectors/Agriculture Department goes to show the hollowness and falsity of the claim of the complainant. Further submitted that if any damage of the crop of the complainants was caused due to their own negligence and inefficiency and not due to the poor quality of the weedicide as alleged. Hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X and C-Y along with documents as annexure C-1 and close his evidence. OPs tendered his affidavit as Annexure RW1/A and RW2/B and close his evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the both the parties and carefully gone through the case file. Counsel for the complainant argued that he had purchased 12 packets of anti-weeds medicine and the same were sprayed on standing wheat crops but the weeds were not destroyed  due to its ineffectiveness.  In this way, the whole purpose of spraying the anti-weeds medicine has been defeated due to which the complainant has suffered a loss of expected yield as well as mental agony.

                   On the other hand, the Ops argued that Columbus is one of the best product of the OP No. 2 which is widely used by the farmer in the country and said product has always been proved very effective in getting rid of weeds as the same has been tested from time to time. Counsel for the Op further argued that complainant has never lodged any complaint with the OP as well as the Agriculture Department and the complainant failed to file the application under Section 13(1) C of the Consumer Protection Act to prove the above said medicine i.e. “Columbus” is an inferior quality and was not effective.

                             Perusal of record available on file, reveals that complainant has not lodged any complaint to the OP as well as Agriculture Department qua the inferior quality of the product. The arguments of counsel for OP that complainant has not moved any application under section 13(1)(c) of C.P. Act is relevant in present case which says “Where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which conanot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the analysis or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect and to report its findings thereon to the District Forum within a period of  forty-five days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the District Forum”

                   But  in the present case, the complainant has not moved any application before the Forum  for inspection of the field as well as the crops to ascertain the facts, whether the medicine which sprayed by the complainant in his field to destroy the weeds in the wheat crops was not of good quality. In this way, the complainant failed to prove his case. There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party. So, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be sent of parties concerned as per rule. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on :21.12.2016                                              Sd/-

                                                                                      (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

                                                                                Sd/-

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member