Haryana

Ambala

CC/333/2012

RAJ SINGH S/O GIAN SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

PRINCE PESTICIDES AND SEEDS STORE - Opp.Party(s)

R.K.Singh

10 Mar 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 333 of 2012

                                                          Date of Institution         : 27.11.2012

                                                          Date of decision   : 10.03.2017

 

 

          Raj Singh son of Shri Gian Singh resident of Village and P.O. Thambar   Tehsil Barara, District, Ambala.  

……. Complainant.

 

 

1.       Prince Pesticides and Seeds Store, Babain Road, Adhoya, District Ambala,       through its prop./partner-Sanjeev Kumar.

 

2.       P.I. Industries Ltd; Corporate office: Vipul Square, Sushant Lok, Phase-1,        Gurgaon-122-009, Haryana (India) through its Manager.

 

 ….…. Respondents.

 

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER                             

 

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   Sh. Sandeep Mishra, counsel for OP No. 1.

                   Sh. G.S. Bawa, counsel for OP No. 2.

 

ORDER:

 

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant had purchased of Nomni gold of two bottles (80 ML each quantity) for a sum of Rs. 520/- on 29.07.2012 and 30.07.2012 bearing receipt No. 2 and 03 and the batch No. of the above said pesticides is 11NGM02-III and 11 NGM02-III, the complainant has paid a sum of Rs. 1040/- to the above said OP No. 1. Further submitted that the complainant has sown the paddy crops in his two acres of land and the complainant has sprayed the above said pesticides in his paddy crop fields as per the instruction of the OP No. 1 but after spraying the above said pesticides, the paddy crop of the complainant has been totally damaged/destroyed due the inferior quality of the above said pesticides, which has been given by the Op No. 1.  Further submitted that thereafter, the complainant has filed a complaint to the Deputy Director Agriculture, Ambala regarding the non-functioning of the above said pesticides purchased by the complainant from OP No. 1 regarding to check the paddy crops sprayed by the complainant and inspect the same and to send the report after visiting the fields of the complainant. Further submitted that on 19.09.2012, a joint team inspected the paddy crops of the fields of the complainant and submitted his report vide bearing no. Sr. T.A./5073 dated 08.10.2012. In this way, the complainant has suffered a financial loss and mental harassment. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, Op No. 1 appeared and filed written statement submitting that it is admitted fact that the complainant had purchased pesticides from the OP No. 1. However, OP No. 1 purchased these pesticides from Kishan Khan Bhandar Ugala on 27.07.2012 of the company OP No. 2. OP No. 1 sold it to the complainant in the seal pack as purchased by him Kishan Khad Bhandar Ugala. Further submitted that no intimation was given to the OP No. 1.

                   Upon notice OP No. 2 appeared and filed written statement submitting that the complainant himself has not used the product as per the recommended method and did not disclose the method of use while applying the said product on the crop and the present complaint filed with ulterior motive to gain undue benefits from the OP. Further submitted that the name and address of manufacturer and marketers together with the Phone numbers, e-mail address etc. in case consumer complaint are mentioned on each and every package of “Nominee Gold”, which is a legal requirement too under the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and Legal Metrology (packaged commodities) Rule 201, so the consumer may contact on such number in case of any compliant. However, no complaint in relation to the instant matter was ever received by the OP, which clearly indicates that the present complaint is nothing but a false and baseless story of the complainant. Further submitted that the complainant has not followed the provisions made in section 13 (1) (C) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is clearly mentioned on the package that “As the conditions of use of the product are beyond our control, the company cannot assume any liability/responsibility, other than uniform quality of its product when stored properly and the complainant did not explain the method of application of the “Nominee Gold” in his complaint with ulterior motive and therefore the complaint in hand is liable to be dismissed.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X with documents as annexure C-1 to C-6 and close his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OP No. 1 has tendered affidavit as Annexure RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-15 and close his evidence. Counsel for OP No. 2 has also tendered documents as Annexure RW2/B & RW2/H alongwith documents as Annexure R-16 and closed 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 pesticides of Nomni gold of two bottles from OP and sprayed the same in his paddy crops but due to inferior quality of the said pesticides, the paddy crops were destroyed and not yielded up to the mark. In this way, the whole purpose of spraying the pesticides 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 counsel for OPs has argued that Nomni gold, pesticides is one of the best product of their company which is widely used by the farmer in the country and said product has always been proved very effective in getting rid of insects as the same has been tested from time to time and the pesticides has been purchased by complainant from the batch No. 11NGM02 has been also tested by the Quality Control Department and certificate of Analysis Annexure R-5 dated 06.05.2011. Counsel for the Op further argued that complainant has never lodged any complaint with the OP and the complainant failed to file the application under Section 13(1) C of the Consumer Protection Act before this Forum at the time of filing of the complaint to prove the above said medicine i.e. “Nomni Gold” is an inferior quality and was not effective.  The OP has also relied upon the judgment rendered by State Consumer Dispute Redressal, Haryana 1998 (3) CPJ 356 has held that Laboratory analysis of sample of insecticide a mandatory requirement- Non-compliance of mandatory provision- Appellant company not liable for any deficiency.

                             Perusal of record available on file reveals that complainant has not lodged any complaint to the OP qua the inferior quality of the product. However, the complainant placed on record Annexure C-6, copy of the covering letter dated 08.10.2012 issued by Agriculture Department, Ambala but it is very surprising to us that covering letter of the report Annexure C-6 is on the file but the report is not annexed with the letter. So, in the absence of report, we cannot relied upon the document Annexure C-6 and the version of complainant that as per report of the Agriculture Department, pesticides was not effected and thus the same is not believable. 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 cannot 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”

                   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 insects in the paddy crops was not of good quality. Rather, OP has also placed on testing report of same batch tested Quality Control Department as Annexure R-5. In this way, the complainant miserably 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. Copy of the order be sent of parties concerned as per rule. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on :10.03.2017                                               Sd/- 

                                                                             (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

                                                                                 Sd/-

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member