In the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Murshidabad, Berhampore, Murshidabad.
Case No. C.C/183 /2014
Date of filing: 26/12/2014. Date of Final Order: 11/05/2017
Lal Mohammad Sk.
S/O- Lt. Sattar Sk. of Vill.- Palashi.
P.O.- Kolan Radhakantapur. P.S.- Ranitala.
Dist- Murshidabad, ……………………………... Complainant
- Vs-
1). Prop. Nepal Chandra Kairy. Of Vill.- Nakurtala.
P.O.- Jahankosha. P.S.& Dist.- Murshidabad.
2). Pro.O.P.- A.D.O.- Bhagwangola-II
P.O.& P.S.- Bhagwangola. Dist.- Murshidabad ………….…………………. Opposite Parties
Bidishya Sarkar. Ld. Advocate .…………………….…. for the complainant.
OP No.1 - in person.
Before: Hon’ble President, Anupam Bhattacharyya.
Hon’ble Member, Samaresh Kumar Mitra.
FINAL ORDER
Sri Samaresh Kumar Mitra, Member.
The complainant is a cultivator having three bighas of land to cultivate. With the intention to cultivate Potato he purchased 30 packets of potato seeds including D.A.P, Khol, S.S.P., M.O.P. and Start ( Potato seed dressing) and GNAT incurring a sum of Rs.74,370. From the OP No.1 He also incurred a sum of Rs.15,000. for cultivating the land. The OP gave the multiplex Start for treating the potato seeds and this complainant used the said Start for treating the seeds as a result the said Potato demolished within 15 days from the date of cultivation. Thereafter the complainant informed the matter to the A.D.O.- Bhagwangola-II OP No.2 on 20.11.2014 and the OP No.2 enquired the matter and informed this complainant that the OP No.1 sold expired multiplex start and using the said multiplex start the potato seeds have been demolished. But the OP No.2 did not submit any report in that connection. The complainant many a times requested the OP No.1 to supply the potato seeds but the OP No.1 did not pay heed which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1. The OP No.1 did not deliver the potato seeds and other materials to this complainant as such the complainant again incurred a sum of Rs.50,000/- for cultivating the said land. The OP No.1 sold expiry multiplex start and did not deliver the potato seeds and other materials again to this complainant and as such the complainant has no other alternative but to file this complaint before this Forum for redressal as prayed in the prayer portion of the complaint petition.
The OP No.1 filed written version in which he denied that he did not sale the Multiplex Start and GNAT or any pesticide that diminished the Potato. The Complainant at first wanted to purchase Multiplex Start and GNAT and he agreed to sale those pesticides but later on the complainant refused to purchase those. He also assailed that he did not charge any cost for selling Multiplex Start and GNAT on 24.10.2014. He only sold Potato seed and fertilizer and for selling the same he took cost amounting to Rs.47,370/- from this complainant. So the allegations leveled against him are false and concocted and he is not entitled to get any compensation from him and prayed to acquit him from this proceedings.
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit in which he assailed that OP No.1 is a reputed shop where all the farming products are available and for cultivating Potato in three bighas of land complainant purchased 30 packets of Potato seed including D.A.P, Khol, S.S.P., M.O.P. and Start (Potato seed dressing) and GNAT incurring a sum of Rs.74,370.00 from the OP NO.1. He also incurred a sum of RS.15,000.00 for cultivating the said land. The OP given the Multiplex Start for treating the potato seeds and he used the said start for treating the Potato seeds. But 15 days after the date of cultivating the said land he saw the said Potato have been demolished. He informed the matter to the OP No.2 on 20.11.2014. That the OP No.2 after enquiring the matter informed him that the OP No.1 sold expired Multiplex Start and using the said Multiplex Start the Potato seeds been demolished. The report of the OP No.2 is a necessary document in this proceeding so he is the Proforma OP No.2. The complainant several times requested the OP No.1 to supply the Potato seeds again but the OP did not pay any heed which amounts to deficiency on service on the part of the OP No.1. So the complainant filed the instant complaint petition praying for a direction upon the OP No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.1,12,370 and Rs.50,000 for compensation and Rs.5000 for litigation cost and 9% interest since filing the complaint petition.
Ex-parte Argument as advanced by the agent of the complainant heard in full.
From the discussion herein above, we find the following Issues/Points for consideration.
ISSUES/POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Whether the Complainant Lal Mohammad Sk.is a 'Consumer' of the opposite party?
2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3. Whether the O.Ps carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
4. Whether the complainants proved their case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to them?
DECISION WITH REASONS
In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.
(1).Whether the Complainant Lal Mohammad Sk.is a 'Consumer' of the opposite party?
From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a "Consumer" as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as he purchased the pesticide from the OP no.1 during the period of cultivation of Potato and the complainant produced the bill or receipt of the OP No.1 which transpires the same, so he is entitled to get service from the OPs.
(2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
Both the complainant and opposite parties are residents/carrying on business within the district of Murshidabad. The complainant prayed Rs.1,12,370/-and interest @9% per annum and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.5000 for litigation cost ad valorem which is within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
(3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
From the averments of complaint and perusing the documents in record it transpires that the complainant being a farmer with the intent to cultivate Potato purchased the Potato seeds as well as pesticides and fertilizer from the OP No.1 and thereafter sowed the Potato seeds in his land but germination took place due to application of date expired pesticide. It appears from the bill or receipt of the OP No.1 that the complainant purchased the date expired Star 100ml and Gnat 500mg from the OP No.1 which he corroborated by filing evidence on affidavit. The OP No.1 by filing written version denied that he did not sale the impugned pesticide to this complainant so he is not liable to pay any compensation for the loss of the complainant. The report of OP No.2 is a valuable piece of evidence from which we can see that enquiry conducted by him in the land of the complainant on 25th Nov.2014 ‘where the total area of the field was 166 decimal and within this area only 100 decimal had been used for Potato cultivation and the germination of Potato seed tuber was about to nil also there was no scope for further germination of Potato and ultimately the farmer losses the Potato crop’.
So the complainant incurred loss in his cultivation by sowing the potato seeds purchased from the OP No.1. The bill or receipt of the OP No.1 clearly depicts that the complainant purchased everything for the cultivation of Potato from the OP No.1 and after sowing the seeds germination did not take place and his averments are supported by the report of the OP No.2. The OP No.1 was absent during course of argument so the proceedings taken ex-parte against him. He is the only person to discard the demand of the complainant by placing his argument.
From the above discussions we may safely conclude that the complainant suffered loss by sowing the Potato seeds mixed with pesticides purchased from the OP No.1 which is not appropriate for cultivation as a result the germination did not take place. The OP No.1 is liable to pay compensation to this complainant as the complainant suffered loss as the cause of OP No.1.
4. Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?
The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the Complainant proved his case, so the Opposite Party No.1 could not avoid his responsibility of paying the claim of the complainant as ascertained by this Forum.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered that the complaint case being No.183/2014 be and the same is allowed in part against the Opposite Party No.1 with a litigation cost of Rs.5,000.
The Opposite Party No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to this complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of final order.
The OP No.2 is exonerated from the liability.
No other reliefs are awarded to the complainant for harassment and mental agony.
At the event of failure to comply with the order the Opposite Party No.1 shall pay fine @Rs.50/- for each day's delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 45 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any, in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by registered Post for information & necessary action.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Member, President,
