Per Smt.S.P.Lale, Hon’ble Member:

This is an appeal filed by the original complainant whose complaint was dismissed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Solapur in consumer complaint no.11/2009 decided on 22/07/2009.  The case of the complainant in the Forum below was that the complainant had purchased five bottles of ubichem solution from Gurudutta Krishi Kendra situated at Upalai(Khurd), Tal- Madha.  Out of five bottles the complainant used only three bottles to dissolve the (Giberalic Acid) G.A. Appellant also dissolved G.A.  according to instructions given on the bottle by the opp.party.  However according to complainant, basically the present solution was of the low grade and therefore, G.A. did not dissolve properly.  The solution was sprayed over by the appellant on the grape garden cultivated him, but the bunch of groups had not grown bigger in size and quantity of the grapes in the bunch was also less.  Ultimately, the complainant suffered loss of `5 Lakhs because of inferior quality of G.A. product which was sprayed by the complainant on the grapes.

  The complainant lodged his complaint before the opp.party-company but officer of the opp.paryt-compnay did not visit the said site.  Therefore, complainant sent notice to the opp.party though his lawyer on 20/11/2008.  Opp.party- company gave a vague reply on 20/12/2008.  Therefore, complainant was constrained to file consumer complaint in Forum below for deficiency in service.

Opp.party filed its written statement and contested the claim of the complainant.  Opp.party pleaded that complainant is not owner of the gut no.505.  Out of gut no.505 some land is in the name of Shri Mahadeo Apparao Ubale and complainant has not made party in the complaint to Mahadeo Apparao Ubale.  Opp.party further pleaded that out of five bottles, complainant has only used three bottles on the grapes in his six acres land.  However, in three bottles at the most only two acres crops can be fertilized.  Therefore, opp.party pleaded that complainant has not used G.A. bottles as per instructions of the company and finally prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

        We heard submissions of Adv. Mr.R.M.Deshmukh  for appellant and Adv.Mr.Vilas Jadhav for respondent.  We have also perused the copy of the impugned order.

        We are finding that order passed by the Forum below is just and proper and sustainable in law.  We perused the report of Agriculture Development officer of Zilla Parishad, Solapur.  It is nowhere mentioned that after using said G.A. grapes had not grown in bigger size or grapes bunches were not longer.  Therefore, whether grapes were of smaller size or grape bunches are not longer due to inferior quality of G.A. is required to be proved by the reliable evidence.

        All the procedure prescribed by law under Section 13(1)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for sending the samples for analysis has not been followed.  The appellant should have produced sample before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum for getting it analyzed.  The report submitted by District Agriculture Development Officer, Zilla Parishad, Solapur is on record.  

Under these circumstances, the appeal preferred by the appellant is liable to be dismissed.  Hence, we pass the following order:-

                                :-ORDER-:

1.           Appeals stands dismissed.

2.           Parties are left to bear their own costs.

3.           Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties.

The District Agricultural Grievances Committee, Solapur opined that said G.A. solution is not falling under Insecticides Act, 1968 and they refrained themselves giving an opinion.  When this is so, then the complainant cannot prove the substandard quality of G.A.  Therefore the District Consumer Redressal Forum was quite right in dismissing the complaint.