Haryana

StateCommission

A/1024/2016

BALBIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

ROSHAN LAL SANJEEV KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

SATBIR GILL

28 Feb 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :   1024 of 2016

Date of Institution:     27.10.2016

Date of Decision :     28.02.2017

 

Balbir Singh s/o Sh. Bhag Singh, Resident of Village Gadrana, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

1.      M/s Roshan Lal Sanjeev Kumar, Resident of 480B, New Mandi Kalanwali, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa, through its Proprietor/Authorised person.

2.      Sahib Pesticides, 0-8, SCF-11, Ist Floor, New Sabzi Mandi, Karnal-132001, Haryana, through its authorised person.

3.      Adhunik Crop Care Private Limited, SCO-386, Top Floor, Sector 37-D, Chandigarh-160036, through its authorised person.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                      

 

Argued by:          Shri Satbir Gill, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

         The unsuccessful complainant is in appeal against the order dated September 20^th, 2016, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby the complaint was dismissed.

2.                Balbir Singh-complainant/appellant, purchased 1½ liters Star-care and 2½ liters Ramdev (Pesticides) from M/s Roshan Lal Sanjeev Kumar-Opposite Party No.1, on August 9^th, 2014 for Rs.1950/- and Rs.7500/- respectively, vide bill Exhibit C-2. He sprayed the pesticides in thirteen acres of his cotton crop. It was alleged that due to defect in the pesticides, the crop was damaged.

3.                The complainant complained to the agriculture department upon which the Deputy Director Agriculture, Sirsa constituted a team of agriculture officials, that is, Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Mandi Dabwali; Block Agriculture Officer, Odhan and Agriculture Development Officer, Taruana, directing them to inspect the crop of the complainant and to submit report. Accordingly, the team of the agriculture officers inspected the fields of the complainant on August 21^st, 2014 and submitted report (Exhibit C-6) observing that the cotton crop was damaged due to use of high dose and double spray of pesticides.

4.                Learned counsel for the complainant-appellant has urged that the pesticides which were supplied by the opposite parties, were not recommended by the Haryana Agriculture University, Hisar. So, the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.

5.                The contention raised is not tenable. It has been specifically mentioned in the report (Exhibit C-6) that the farmer used the mixture of two pesticides and that too of double dose which was not prescribed by the Agriculture University, Hisar.  There is nothing in the report to suggest that the pesticides supplied by the opposite parties to the complainant were defective.  Thus, the impugned order does not call for any interference.

6.                Hence, the appeal fails and is dismissed.

 

Announced 28.02.2017

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

Balbir Singh Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL