BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 51 of 2016
Date of Institution : 09.02.2016
Date of Decision : 28.2.2017
Raj Kumar son of Sh. Sham Chand, resident of village Theri Baba Sawan Singh, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Sirsa Beej company Janta Bhawan road, Sirsa.
2. Syngenta India Limited Amar Paradigm S.No. 110/11/03, Baner Road, Pune-411045, Maharashtra.
..…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH.S.B.LOHIA …………………………..PRESIDENT
SH.RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……….MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Inderjit Singh, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. J.B.L. Garg, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief is that on 14.12.2015 he had purchased pesticide topic of Syngenta company for spraying on the wheat crop. He had sprayed the said pesticide on wheat crop in eight acres and at the relevant time he found that there was no effect of pesticide and due to this reason, his whole crop was destroyed. The complainant got inspected his crop and the Field Inspection Officer found that total crop of complainant has been destroyed and there was no effect of pesticide. The complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.two lacs fifty thousands from the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed joint reply taking certain preliminary objections. It has also been submitted that complainant did not purchase any pesticide from the answering op no.1 on 14.12.2015. The complainant has not mentioned the cash memo number of alleged purchase of pesticides made by him from op no.1. Besides it, the name, batch number and lot number of the pesticide have also not been mentioned. Moreover, as per spot inspection report relied upon by complainant, there is no such conclusion that crop of complainant suffered 100% loss. The answering ops have no knowledge and notice of alleged spot inspection of the field of complainant by the officers of Agriculture Department because no notice was ever given to the answering ops by the officers of the Agriculture Department about alleged spot inspection. The alleged inspection report is not a legal, valid and scientific report and no square and killa numbers have been mentioned in the same. In the alleged spot inspection report, it is no where mentioned that the entire crop of complainant was destroyed.
3. By way of evidence, complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1, affidavit of Sham Chand Ex.C2, copy of bill Ex.C3, copy of letter dated 5.2.2016 Ex.C4, copy of inspection report Ex.C5, copy of jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 Ex.C6, copy of mutation Ex.C7, copy of khasra girdawari for the year 2015-2016 Ex.C8, copy of affidavit Ex.C9. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit Ex.R1, copy of certificate Ex.R2 and copy of letter dated 3.1.2002 Ex.R3.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
5. The complainant in order to prove his case placed on file inspection report of Agriculture Department, Sirsa Ex.C5. We carefully gone through the report of the officers of Agriculture department. It would also not be out of place to mention here that the officers of the agriculture department have not mentioned the khasra and killa numbers of the land which was allegedly inspected by the officers of the agriculture department. From the said report, the identity of the land can not be established and such report does not carry any evidentiary value. Holding these views we have relied upon the observation of our Hon’ble Haryana State Commission in a case Narender Kumar Vs. M/s Arora Trading Company and other 2007(2) CLT 683 in which it was clearly observed by their Lordship that when the killa and khasra numbers of land which was inspected by the Agriculture Department officer had not been mentioned in the report, the report cannot be taken into account to support the stand of the complainant. As such no finding can be recorded in favour of the complainant.
6. Further, as per letter of Director of Agriculture Department, Haryana, Panchkula dated 3.1.2002 (copy Ex.R3) issued to all the Deputy Directors of Agriculture in the State it was directed by the Director Agriculture that inspection team should be consisting total four members, two officer of Agriculture Department, one representative from concerned agency and scientists from KGK/KVK/ HAU. In the inspection report, it is not mentioned that any notice was given to the representative of the concerned agency, so this report is not conclusive and the same is defective one.
7. Thus, complainant has failed to prove his case and report of inspection team is not acceptable in the eyes of law. Accordingly the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:28.2.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Member. Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
