Haryana

Kaithal

83/20

Suresh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor M/s Luxmi Dal & Seed Store - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Mukesh Sharma

20 Apr 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.83/2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 14.02.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:20.04.2023.

Suresh Kumar S/o Dharma Ram r/o Village Kultaran, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Proprietor M/s. Luxmi Dal and Seed Store, Opposite Narwania Building Kaithal, (M)01746-223822.
2. Shagun 21-11-Manufactured by UPL Limited-Regd. Office 3-11, G.I.D.C. VAPI-396195 Gujrat, India through its Director (Manufactured of Shagun 21-11 Pesticide/Herbicide) Registered No.CIR-1644/2014 (352).

….Respondents.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Amit Kaushik, Advocate for the OP No.1.

                OP No.2 exparte. 

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Suresh Kumar-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.

                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant is agriculturist by profession and had taken 30 acre agriculture land on theka from Man Singh s/o Malkhan Singh r/o Village Kultaran, Distt. Kaithal at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per acre on yearly basis.  The complainant purchased 31 packets of Shagun 21-11 pesticide/herbicide under the batch No.IQJSGN5401 and IPJSGN5413 for an amount of Rs.23,250/- vide invoice No.8711 dt. 08.01.2020 from the OP No.1.  The complainant used the pesticide in the wheat field to remove the unnecessary weedicide through two persons sent by OP No.1.  One person was Sajjan Singh, Mob.No.8571970356 and name of second person not remember to the complainant.  These two persons sprayed the pesticide in the wheat crops of complainant but after spray of the pesticide purchased by the complainant, the wheat crop was damaged due to sub standard varieties of pesticides sold to the complainant.  The complainant moved an application to the Deputy Agriculture, Kaithal and a team of experts visited the fields of complainant and observed that farmer has caused loss to the extent of 5-10% in 5 acre and 40-50% in 25 acre on account of spray of pesticide sold by the OP No.1.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

2.            Upon notice, the OP No.1 appeared before this Commission, whereas Op No.2 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 05.01.2021 passed by this Commission.  Op No.1 contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; it is submitted that the complainant has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 38(2) of Consumer Protection Act and without compliance of the same, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score only; that the mandatory instructions of Director of Agriculture, Haryana dt. 03.01.2002 have not been complied with, according to which the fields of farmer are to be inspected by Committee comprising of two officers of the Agriculture Department, one representative of concerned seed agency and Scientist of KGK/KVK, HAU and Ops; that the answering OP and other dealers have sold the same batch pesticide in question to numerous farmers being its authorized dealers; that the Agriculture Department, Kaithal has also collected the samples of same batch and send to office of Senior Analyst, Quality Control Laboratory (Insecticides), State Agriculture Department, Haryana, Karnal who submitted their report dt. 24.02.2020 after proper analysis and tests with remarks “Permissible”; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C43 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.             On the other hand, the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R3 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is agriculturist by profession and had taken 30 acre agriculture land on theka from Man Singh s/o Malkhan Singh r/o Village Kultaran, Distt. Kaithal at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per acre on yearly basis.  The complainant purchased 31 packets of Shagun 21-11 pesticide/herbicide under the batch No.IQJSGN5401 and IPJSGN5413 for an amount of Rs.23,250/- vide invoice No.8711 dt. 08.01.2020 from the OP No.1.  The complainant used the pesticide in the wheat field to remove the unnecessary weedicide through two persons sent by OP No.1.  One person was Sajjan Singh, Mob.No.8571970356 and name of second person not remember to the complainant.  These two persons sprayed the pesticide in the wheat crops of complainant but after spray of the pesticide purchased by the complainant, the wheat crop was damaged due to sub standard varieties of pesticides sold to the complainant.  The complainant moved an application to the Deputy Agriculture, Kaithal and a team of experts visited the fields of complainant and observed that farmer has caused loss to the extent of 5-10% in 5 acre and 40-50% in 25 acre on account of spray of pesticide sold by the OP No.1.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents.  Ld. counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention towards the inspection report of Deputy Direction Agriculture Department, Kaithal as per Annexure-C6 and photographs Annexure-C8 to Annexure-C42.   

7.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.1 has argued that the OP No.1 and other dealers have sold the same batch pesticide in question to numerous farmers being its authorized dealers.  It is further argued that the Agriculture Department, Kaithal has also collected the samples of same batch and send to office of Senior Analyst, Quality Control Laboratory (Insecticides), State Agriculture Department, Haryana, Karnal who submitted their report dt. 24.02.2020 after proper analysis and tests with remarks “Permissible”.  Ld. counsel for the Op No.1 has placed reliance upon the case law titled as Devender Kumar and others Vs. Amsons Lab Pvt. Ltd. 2013(4) CPR 268 decided by Hon’ble National Commission. 

8.             We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties.  From perusal of bill dt. 08.01.2020 Annexure-C4, the lot/batch number of the pesticide/herbicide of 31 bags is mentioned as 5405.  The aforesaid pesticide/herbicide were released in the market by its manufacturer for its sale after going through proper tests in the laboratory and the Op No.1 has placed on file the report dt. 24.02.2020 given by Senior Analyst, Quality Control Laboratory (Insecticides), State Agriculture Deptt., Haryana, Karnal, wherein in the column of remarks, it is mentioned “Permissible” which is Annexure-R3 on the file.  The said report is of the same lot number i.e. 5405 which is clear from Annexure-R2/Annexure-C43.  The another contention of Op No.1 is that the said pesticide/herbicide was purchased by the Op No.1 from M/s. Shri Ram Pesticides, Cheeka and during the course of arguments, ld. counsel for the OP No.1 has placed on file the invoices as per Annexure-R4 & Annexure-R5.  We have perused the Annexure-R4 & Annexure-R5 and on both the invoices, the same batch number i.e. 5405 are mentioned.  So, the Ops have proved on the file that the pesticide sold to the complainant was “Permissible”.  The complainant has failed to rebut the above-said report Annexure R3.  The complainant has contended that the crop has been damaged due to defective pesticide as per the photographs Annexure-C8 to Annexure-C42.  No doubt, the crop seems to be damaged but the complainant failed to prove how the crop is damaged.  So, the above-said photographs are not helpful to the complainant without any other cogent evidence.  So, from the facts and circumstances mentioned above, it is clear that the complainant has failed to prove on the file that the pesticide purchased by him from the Op No.1 was of sub-standard or poor quality.  Therefore, we found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  The authority submitted by ld. counsel for the OP No.1 is fully applicable to the facts of instant case.    

9.             Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.  There is no order as to costs.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:20.04.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.