BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 187 of 2015
Date of Institution : 29.10.2015
Date of Decision : 14.12.2016
Sukhwinder Singh son of Shri Milkh Raj, resident of village Dhani Sangatpura, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- M/s Kisan Pesticides village Bharolianwali, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa, through its Prop./ Authorized person (retail seller).
- M/s Narang Pesticides, Booth No.7, New Mandi, Sirsa-125055 (Haryana), through its Authorized person/ responsible person.
- H.P.M. Chemical and Fertilizer Limited, Unit-I, SP-9C, RIICO Industrial Area, Khushkhera, Distt. Alwar (Rajasthan) through its Managing Director/ Authorized person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH.S.B.LOHIA …………………………..PRESIDENT
SH.RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……….MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Onkar Batra. Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Pal Singh, Prop/ op no.1 in person.
Sh. Purshotam Phutela, Advocate for opposite parties no.2 and 3.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief is that he has taken 24 acres of land from different land owners on lease basis at the rate of Rs.47,000/- per acre and had sown paddy crop in all 24 acres of land. He has been in the profession of agriculture for the last more than 10 years and he has vast experience of sowing the crop of all kinds and maintaining the same. He has also engaged two labourers to get the assistance in agricultural work for Rs.50,000/- each and 40 Kg. wheat after every three months. The paddy crop was well irrigated and maintained by complainant with assistance of labourers and crop was well growing up. On 18.7.2015, complainant approached op no.1 and put forth his requirement of spray of pesticides over the paddy crop in 24 acres of land, so that paddy crop may be saved from the attack of insects and other calamities. The op no.1 made enquiry from op no.2 being the distributor of op no.3 and after that, op no.1 supplied 2 Kg. dry powder of pesticide namely 7-Star bearing Lot No.S-144, 5 liter packing of liquid pesticide namely Bond-007 bearing batch No.K-101 as well as 5 liter packing of Hi-star to the complainant for a sum of Rs.17,500/- vide bill dated 18.9.2015. Thereafter, complainant sprayed all the pesticides as per the directions/ guidelines of op no.1 and op no.2. However, after few days of spray of pesticides, the complainant was mentally shocked to see that the pesticides sprayed by complainant has damaged all the paddy crops of 24 acres because the pesticides did not effect in any manner and failed to control the attack of the disease/ insecticides and same occurred only due to the inferior and misbranded/adulterated and duplicate pesticide. The op no.2 assured him to pay compensation on account of damage to crop and also assured on behalf of op no.3 that team of expert will pay visit to his fields very shortly but thereafter, the ops No.2 & 3 put off the genuine complaint of complainant. Thereafter, complainant also approached to the office of Deputy Director Agriculture, Sirsa and moved the complaint but the office of the Deputy Director Agriculture failed to discharge their duties and total damage crop of paddy is still standing at the spot. In this way complainant has suffered huge financial loss and harassment. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, op no.1 appeared and replied that if the complainant has suffered any loss due to mis-branded pesticides, then he is not responsible for the same and only ops No.2 & 3 are responsible for the same.
3. Ops No.2 & 3 in their joint reply have submitted that present complaint is outcome of collusion in between complainant and op no.1, as such in case of supply of any pesticide by op no.1, then op no.1 may be held liable for the same. The complainant has failed to produce on file any inspection report of the agriculturist Analyst Officer mentioning therein that the alleged loss to the crop of complainant is the result of misbranded/ adulterated use of pesticides. The complainant has simply mentioned the area of land as 24 acres but failed to disclose the specific killa numbers and khewat/ khatuni numbers of the land. The variation of the crop depends on various factors. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
4. In evidence, complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Jaswant Singh Ex.CW2/A, affidavit of Tarsem Singh Ex.CW3/A, letter dated 16.11.2015 Ex.C1 alongwith inspection report, lease deed Ex.C2, copy of bill Ex.C3, copy of bill dated 7.9.2015 Ex.C4. On the other hand, op no.2 tendered affidavit Ex.R1. OP no.1 tendered his affidavit Ex.R2.
5. We have heard learned counsel for complainant, op no.1 and learned counsel for ops no.2 & 3 and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The complainant has failed to prove that the pesticides were of inferior quality and mis-branded. The complainant has placed on file inspection report alongwith letter of Deputy Agriculture Director, Sirsa Ex.C1. We carefully gone through the report of the officers of Agriculture department. No sample of pesticide was sent to the Lab. for analysis. It would also not be out of place to mention here that the officials of the agriculture department have also not mentioned the khasra and killa numbers of the land which was allegedly inspected by the officers of the agriculture department. 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. Moreover, the said report does not pin point any defect in the pesticides.
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 one scientist from Krishi Vigyan Kendra. 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:14.12.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Member. Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
