Haryana

Gurgaon

cc/95/2012

Karan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri Mool Chand Bhagwan Dass - Opp.Party(s)

14 Jun 2016

ORDER

                                         DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL FORUM,GURGAON-122001

                                                                                  Consumer Complaint No: 95 of 2012                                                                                                                                                Date of Institution: 27.02.2012/26.03.2012                                                                                                                        Date of Decision:  14.06.2016

Karan Singh s/o Sh. Molahar Ram R/o VPO Khandewala, Tehsil Farrukh Nagar, District Gurgaon.

                                                                                                ….Complainant.

                                                Versus

Shri Mool Chand Bhagwan Dass (Fertilizer Dealer & Buffer Stockist) R/o P.O.Haily Mandi, Near Railway Statioin  Pataudi Road, District Gurgaon-122504.

                                                                                              ..Opposite party

                                                                                               

Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986                                                                 

 

BEFORE:     SHRI SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT

SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER

                  

Present:        Shri M.S.Dhariwal, Adv for the complainant.

                    Shri K.S.Chauhan, Adv for the OP.

 

ORDER       SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.

The case of the complainant, in brief, is that   he visited the shop of the complainant and discussed in respect of purchasing of herbicide for his four and half acre of crop of Jau (Barley) as the above said crop of the complainant was suffering from weed (Kharpatwar) and the OP has advised the complainant to purchase a new medicine herbicide i.e. Moto as the same is very effective in this regard and many farmers have used this medicine/herbicide in their crops of Jau. As per the advice of OP, the complainant has purchased four bags of said herbicide i.e. Moto in cash for a sum of Rs.520/- vide Bill No.597 dated 08.12.2011 and sprayed this medicine in his fields. After 4-5 days of sprinkling the medicine, he visited his field but he was shocked to see that his whole crop of 4 and ½ acre has been destroyed and burned due to the said spray. In this regard he immediately contacted the OP on telephone but the OP has threatened to kill complainant’s grandson and in this regard a complaint has been lodged with Police Chowki, Haily Mandi on the same day i.e. on 23.01.2012. With the pressure of police the concerned team of doctors from Haily Mandi and Palwal came at the spot and reported that due to spray of wrong medicine the crop has been destroyed. Thereafter on 02.02.2012 a complaint has also been written by the complainant to the Deputy Director, Agriculture, District Gurgaon and the competent authority has visited the spot on 10.02.2012 and found that 60 % of the crop has been spoiled due to wrong pray of said herbicide. The complainant requested the OP to pay damages on account of loss of crop. A legal notice was also sent to the OP but of no use. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant prayed that the opposite party be directed to pay Rs. 4 Lacs as compensation with litigation expense to the tune of Rs.2500/-.

2                 The OP in its written reply has alleged that herbicide brand MOTO is not made for the crop of Jau (Barley) as it was also specifically mentioned on the packet of herbicide bag though this medicine was effective on the weed standing in the crop of grain and dhan. The complainant purchased the product at his discretion and never discussed the purpose of purchase of product and crop standing in his fields. It was denied that 60 % of the crop of the complainant has been spoiled.

3                 The complainant in support of his complaint has filed purchase bill Ex.CW-1,  instructions for use of MOTO herbicide Ex.CW-2,  complaint made by Maham Ex.CW-3, application dated 02.02.2012 made to Deputy Director, Agriculture, Gurgaon Ex.CW-4, legal notice dated 02.02.2012 Ex.CW-5, postal receiptEx.CW-6, inspection report dated 15.02.2012 Ex.CW-7,bill of photographer Ex.CW-8 and photographs Ex. C- 9 and Ex.C-10.

4                 OP in its written reply has alleged that instruction for use of MOTO Ex.RW-1, reply of legal notice Ex.RW-2, postal receipt Ex.CW-3, acknowledgement Ex.RW-4 and cover of the packet containing instruction Ex.CW-5.

5                 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record available on file.

6                 Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the parties, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP alleging deficiency in service on their part on the ground that he approached the OP and discussed about the purchase of herbicide for the purpose of removal of weed from the Jau crop of the complainant. The complainant had advised MOTO medicine which was very effective and many farmers had taken the  said medicine for removal of Kharpatwar from the Jau field and in view of discussion the complainant purchased MOTO for a sum of Rs.520/- vide bill Ex.CW-1 for spreading the same in his agricultural crop after mixing with water as per the direction of the OP and after spreading the said herbicide in his fields when the complainant went in his field after 4-5 days  then it was found that the crop had  been damaged and he telephonically contacted OP but in vain and the complainant reported the matter to the police on 23.01.2012. Thereafter team of doctors visited the spot and found that wrong spray of herbicide was used which has destroyed the crop. The complainant wrote complaint to Deputy Director, Agriculture and the competent authority visited the spot and found that 60 % of the crop has been destroyed due to wrong spray. The complainant also sent legal notice to the OP but in vain. On the aforesaid allegations the complainant has claimed compensation on account of loss of crop due to wrong spray besides litigation expenses.

7                 However, as per the contention of the OP, the complaint was not maintainable. The manufacturer of the medicine i.e. M/s Atul Ltd, District Walsad, Gujrat has not been impleaded as a party. It was also argued that herbicide MOTO was not fit for JAU (Barely) and the instructions has been mentioned on the herbicide bag itself and said herbicide was effective for weeding from the crop of Dhan and Wheat. OP has denied that he ever suggested the complainant to purchase herbicide MOTO for barley crop rather the complainant has purchased the said medicine  of his own for the purpose of weeding out of grass standing in his fields. The OP has also denied reporting of the matter to the police station as alleged. The OP has also denied about the complaint made to Deputy Director, Agriculture, Gurgaon as alleged. It has also been argued that the legal notice was duly replied. The OP has denied any negligence on his part and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

8                 Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence placed on file it is evident that complainant purchased MOTO herbicide on 08.12.2011 from the OP vide bill Ex.CW-1. The complainant has alleged that he purchased the said herbicide for the purpose of removal of Kharpatwar from Jau (Barley). However, as per the instructions for use of MOTO as contained in Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-5 it merges that said herbicide was meant for wheat and Dhan and not for Jau (Barley). Therefore, the complainant has used MOTO herbicide in contravention of the direction given in Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-5 and as such on account of misuse of said herbicide by the complainant the OP cannot be held responsible for damage to the crop of the complainant and as such no deficiency in service can be said to have been taken place on the part of the OP.

9                 Moreover, it is pertinent to mention here that in the report Ex.C-7 it has been reported by the Inspecting Team that the medicine which has been used by the complainant has been recommended by the Agriculture University, Hissar for wheat crop and for the removal of Kharpatwar the medicine 2-4D has been recommended by the University for Jau (Barley) crop. Therefore, the complainant himself has misused the herbicide MOTO in the crop of Barley and the said medicine was not meant for Jau rather the same was meant for Wheat and Dhan and as such the complainant himself was negligent and as such we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. The parties be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.

 

Announced                                                                                   (Subhash Goyal)

14.06.2016                                                                                    President,

                                                                                               District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                 Redressal Forum, Gurgaon

 

(Jyoti Siwach)       

Member