Haryana

StateCommission

A/955/2014

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

Puran - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.Vaibhav Narang, Advocate counsel for the appellant

17 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

 

First Appeal No.955 of 2014

Date of the Institution:20.10.2014

 Date of Decision:17.11.2016

 

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Agri Business C/o J.S. Traders, Karnal, New Grain Market, Shop No.495, G.R. Toad, Karnal, through its Director.

                                                          .….Appellant

Versus

Puran son of Sh. Mangtu resident of Village Dahisra, Tehsil & District Sonepat.

                                                                   ….Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Vaibhav Narang, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

Mr.Rohit Goswami, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1.      Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. – OP-1 is in appeal against the Order dated 21.08.2014 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby the complaint of one Puran has been allowed by directing the OP-1 to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.75,000/- for damage of crops, causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment and humiliation.

2.      Briefly stated, according to the complainant, he purchased 200 ML Wallet (Novaluran 10%EC) for Rs.660/- from OP-2 on 14.03.2013. On 16.03.2013 he had sprayed the said medicine in his six bighas of radish crops as per instructions given by OP-2, but after two days, the radish crops of the complainant were totally damaged. Due to this, the complainant suffered a huge financial loss, aggrieved against which act, the complainant approached the District Forum alleging deficiency in service and for realization of damages.

3.      Since OP-2 did not appear before the District Forum, it was proceeded exparte. However according to the OP-1, the insecticides were used to exterminate insects that were detrimental to plant growth and not to destroy the weeds. The complainant should have used a herbicides to destroy unwanted plants. Novaluron is an insecticide recommended for tomato, diamond back mothin cabbage and American bollworm in cotton and is not recommended for radish crop. On that basis, the OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. Despite this, the learned District Forum rejected the pleas raised by the OP and accepted the complaint vide order dated 21.08.2014 granting the aforesaid relief. 

4.      Against this Order of the learned District Forum, the OP-1 has filed Appeal before us contending that the learned District Forum has accepted the complaint without any legal justification, as there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complainant had used the wrong spray/medicine on the radish crop, therefore, for the negligence of the complainant appellant could not be held liable.  

5.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that the complainant purchased a medicine sold by the appellant 200 ML Wallet (Novaluran 10%EC) for Rs.660/- from OP-2 on 14.03.2013. Though this medicine was not for the crop of radish yet the complainant used the same for radish crop and sprayed it without any professional technical assistance and without verifying its proper use for the crop of radish. The appellant has categorically stated in the written statement that the said insecticides were used to exterminate insects that were detrimental to plant growth and not to destroy the weeds. The complainant should have used a herbicides to destroy unwanted plants. Novaluron is an insecticide recommended for tomato, diamond back mothin cabbage and American bollworm in cotton and is not recommended for radish crop. This is duly corroborated by a copy of precautions and direction for use and recommendation for use of Novaluron 10% EC Wallet Insecticide produced by the appellant on record. The complainant did not produce any material to rebut the assertion made in the written statement nor did he produce any agriculturist/scientist to bring the expert opinion on record. He satisfied himself by producing photographs to show the extent of damage to his radish crops.

6.      Consequently, we fully agree and uphold the contention of the appellant and finding no merit in the complaint, dismiss the same by allowing the appeal and by reversing the impugned Order passed by the learned District Forum.     

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

November 17th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

R.K.