This C.C. is coming before us for final hearing, in the presence of Sri. K. L. Narasimha Rao, Advocate for Complainant and in the presence of Sri P.B.SriRamulu, Advocate for opposite parties; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member)
1. This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is an agriculturist and used to raise the commercial crops like Cotton and Red gram and for which taken the lands on lease from various farmers in an extent of Ac. 6.00gts. out of Sy.No.332/A, 332/AE, 332/LU and 332/EE, situated in Meenavolu Village of Khammam District. The complainant also raised the red gram as a sub-crop with cotton crop in the said lands. During the course of cultivation, the crop was attacked with mosquito bite. For which, the complainant purchased FASMITE 50 1Ltr. Container on 18.09.2008 vide bill No.8523 for Rs.1840 from the opposite party No.1, by attracting the vide publicity of opposite parties regarding the eradication of mosquito bite and applied the same on his crop, but there is no use and no eradication of mosquito bite even after application of FASMITE 50 and also observed that the crop has no flowering. The complainant also submitted that he invested huge amounts for cultivation, manure etc. according to the advises given by the A.O. concerned from time to time and after sustaining heavy loss, the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and A.O. concerned, they came to the field and opined that the cotton crop was scratched and the red gram was completely dried up, therefore the A.O. sent the sample of FASMITE 50 EC for analysis and as such it indicates the damage of crop is only due to usage of FASMITE 50, which was manufactured by the opposite party No.2. The complainant further submitted that he has taken all the precautions by following the procedure as prescribed by the opposite parties and spent an amount of Rs.1,33,940/- for purchase of seeds, ploughing, fertilizers, pesticides and labour charges etc., but he could not get even 1% of the flowering and sustained loss of Rs.2,50,000/- on cotton and red gram crops due to spray of FASMITE 50 and as such approached the Forum and prayed to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.2,50,000/- towards damages and Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony.
2. Along with the complaint, the complainant filed his affidavit and also filed the following documents, which were marked as Exhibits.
Ex.A1:- Original cash bill dated 18.09.2008.
Ex.A2:- Pahani copies (4 in Number).
Ex.A3:- Photo copy of pass book pertaining to one Ch. Srinivasa
Reddy.
Ex.A4:- Photo copy of pass book pertaining to one G. Sambi
Reddy.
Ex.A5:- Photo copy of pass book pertaining to one M. Sai Babu
Ex.A6:- Photo copy of pass book pertaining to one Ch. Padma
Ex.A7:- Photo copy of Lease agreements (4 in Number).
Ex.A8:- Letter dated 1-11-2008, addressed by the ADA, Madhira to
the deputy director of agriculture, Hyderabad.
Ex.A9:- Original bills (11 in Number).
3. On receipt of notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel. The opposite party No.2 filed the counter by denying the averments made in the complaint.
4. In the counter, the opposite party No.2 submitted that they never advertised or advised to use the product FASMITE 50 for eradication of mosquito bite and the instructions and recommendations for use are clearly mentioned on the pack of the product and in the leaflet, which were supplied with the container at the time of purchase. If the complainant used the product on his own accord, he can follow the instructions specified and bear the loss if any and there is no obligation on their part to compensate any loss occurred beyond their instructions. The opposite party No.2 further submitted that the alleged product is a quality product and the same was proved from the report, dated 14.11.2008, issued by the Insecticide Laboratory, Anantapur and the alleged damage depends upon several factors i.e. weather, soil conditions, irrigation facility and deceases of the crop etc. and as such there is no liability on the part of them and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. Along with the counter, the opposite party No.2 filed report of Insecticide Laboratory, Dept. of Agriculture, Anantapur, which is marked as Ex.B1 and also filed broacher of the FASMITE 50, which is marked as Ex.B2.
6. In support of their averments, the complainant filed his chief affidavit and the opposite party No.2 filed the written arguments by reiterating the same facts.
7. In view of the above submissions, now the point that arose for consideration is,
Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
It is the case of the complainant that he purchased FASMITE 50 from the opposite parties for eradication of mosquito bite and applied the same on his crop and sustained heavy loss due to the application of said product according to the vide publicity of the opposite parties. On the other hand, the opposite party No.2 resisted the case of the complainant by submitting that they never prescribed or advertised the product of FASMITE 50 for eradication of mosquito bite and the product FASMITE 50 is produced according to the specifications and in support of its averments, the opposite party No.2 filed Analysis Report of Insecticides Laboratory, Anantapur, which is marked as Ex.B1 and as per Ex.B1, the alleged product (insecticide) FASMITE 50 EC is according to the specifications of Beauro of Indian Standards and as such it is enough to come to a conclusion that the alleged damage was not affected due to the application of FASMITE 50, produced by the opposite party No.2 and we can not simply throw out the report of scientific analysis basing on mere allegations and as such the point is answered accordingly against the complainant.
8. In the result, the C.C. is dismissed. No costs.
Typed to my dictation, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this the 14th day of September, 2010.
President Member Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined for complainant: None
Witnesses examined for opposite parties: None
Exhibits marked for Complainant:
Ex.A1:- Original cash bill dated 18.09.2008.
Ex.A2:- Pahani copies (4 in Number).
Ex.A3:- Photo copy of pass book pertaining to one Ch. Srinivasa
Reddy.
Ex.A4:- Photo copy of pass book pertaining to one G. Sambi
Reddy.
Ex.A5:- Photo copy of pass book pertaining to one M. Sai Babu
Ex.A6:- Photo copy of pass book pertaining to one Ch. Padma
Ex.A7:- Photo copy of Lease agreements (4 in Number).
Ex.A8:- Letter dated 1-11-2008, addressed by the ADA, Madhira to
the deputy director of agriculture, Hyderabad.
Ex.A9:- Original bills (11 in Number).
Exhibits marked for opposite parties:
Ex.B1:- Insecticide Laboratory, Dept. of agriculture, Anantapur.
Ex.B2:- Broacher of the FASMITE 50.
President Member Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
