Karnataka

Bidar

CC/62/2014

MAHARUDRAPPA S/O VEERBHADRAPPA ANANDWADE - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUHDAM KRISHI SEVA KENDRA BHALKI 585328 - Opp.Party(s)

P.M. DESHPANDE

31 Mar 2017

ORDER

::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

AT BIDAR::

 

 

                                                                                                                 C.C.No. 62/2014

 

                                                                                                  Date of filing : 26/07/2014

 

                                                                                             Date of disposal : 31/03/2017

 

 

P R E S E N T:-                    (1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata,

                                                                                         B.A., LL.B.,

                                                                                                       President.

    

                                              (2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),

                                                                                 B.A.LL.B.,

                                                                                           Member.

 

                                   

 

                                               

COMPLAINANT/S:          Maharudrappa, s/o Veerbhadrappa

                                          Anandwade, Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture,

                                             R/o Kuntesirsi, Tq.Bhalki, Dist.Bidar.

                                          

                                          

              

 

 

                                         (By Shri. P.M. Deshpande, Advocate)

 

 

                                                      VERSUS

 

OPPONENT/S   :-             1.  Sudham Krishi Seva Kendra,

                                                Shop no.5-5-45, Gunj road,

 Bhalki-585328, Dist.Bidar.

 

                                         2.   Makhteshim Agan India Ltd.,

                                                No.734, Block-P, New Alipore,

                                             Kolkatta-700053 ( West Bengal).

                                          

                                     

  

 

 

                                        (By Shri. K.Bhadrashetty, Advocate)   

 

 

                                                

::   J U D G M E N T  : :

 

 

 

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

 

                    The complainant is before this Forum filing a complaint u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the O.Ps as described hereunder:-  

 

2                     The complainant is native of village Kuntesirsi of Bhalki Taluk, Dist.Bidar.  The complainant and his wife both are the  owner of land in sy.no.38 to the extent of 5 acres, had developed land with all preparation and planted sugar cane in the land and also he had sufficient water and started all the methods for planting the sugarcane crop.

 

3.        The complainant claims that, on 18/04/2014 he had purchased the herbicides of Diurex with allied materials from the O.P.no.1 as required for spraying to the   sugarcane plants grown.  The O.P.no.1 is the dealer of herbicides Pesticides and fertilizers and the O.P.no.2 is the manufacturing unit of the Pesticides/fertilizers.  The complainant after purchasing the said herbicide, used on sugarcane planted crops.   Subsequently the sugar cane got damaged and its colour converted into white and the said crops totally were lost, resulting the complainant to sustain heavy loss to the tune of Rs 3,15,000/-.  This clearly indicates that the items supplied by the O.P.no.1 are of inferior and defective quality.  Hence the complainant is before us claiming compensation for sum of Rs.3,15,000/- against  the O.Ps. 

 

4.              After receipt of the Court’s notice, the  O.Ps have appeared and O.P.no.1 and 2 have engaged common counsel.  The O.P.no.2 has filed written versions stating that, the complaint filed by the complainant is neither based on facts nor as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, hence, the complaint is not maintainable.  The O.P.no.1 is the dealer of the products of O.P.no.2 and the O.P.no.2 is the manufacturer of the Agro Pesticides but, not service provider and when both the O.Ps are not at all service providers, there arises no question of any deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps hence, the complaint is not at all maintainable.  The application of any pesticides is subject to follow of given directions for usage and any deviation there from, castes the sole responsibility upon the user and so also usage of pesticides in combination with such other pesticides and either excess usage upon the plants would give undesirable results and such of the act on the part of the complainant can’t be taken as deficiency of service.  In the sale deed enclosed with the complaint revealed that the  complainant and his wife purchased the land wherein only Kharif crop is growable and thus there arises no question of there being irrigational facility to grow sugarcane crop and further disprove the claim of there being sufficient water.

 

5.               O.P.no.2 further avered that the complainant and his wife purchased the land in end of February 2014 and the complainant allegedly purchased the pesticides in April for its application on sugarcane plants hardly of the period of one month and or so, wherein the size of either the sugarcane plants and the grass would be smaller and if the pesticides applied, then the entire plants would be affected and furthermore in any case the complainant had not filed any complaint before this O.P. for its redressal and in the absence of any such complaint the complainant cannot directly approach the Forum for redressal of dispute when no dispute is unsettled by this O.P.  As per the sale deed the complainant might have been cultivating in the land sy.no. 38 on his own and on behalf of his wife and developed the land for growing sugarcane but, it is denied based on contents of the sale deed that he is having sufficient water, the proof of which may kindly be authentically be put upon the complainant.  The O.P.no.2 denied the contention of the complainant regarding the complainant had used the Diurex with allied materials and the entire sugarcane crop destroyed after using the pesticides which was supplied by the O.P.no.1 and it is vehemently denied that the pesticides as supplied by O.P.no.1 is of inferior quality and substandard.  Filing of photographs can be no proof of the same.  None of other farmers have filed any complaint as such and so also the complainant and the claimed damages of Rs.3,15,000/- are all imaginary and do not fit to be claimed as against the O.P.  There is no any unfair trade practice, deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps.  Hence, the complaint filed by the complainant may be dismissed with costs.

 

 

6.         Considering the rival contentions of the parties, the following points arise for our consideration:-

 

1. Do the opponents prove that, the complainant is not a consumer?

 

2. Does the complainant prove that, there has been a deficiency of service in the part of the Opponents?

 

3. What order ?

 

 

 

7.           Our answers to the points stated above are as follows:-

 

               1.   In the negative.

               2.   In the negative.

               3. As per the final order, for the following:                                                                                   

 

 

:: REASONS ::

 

8.  Point No.1:-        The opponents are traders and manufacturers respectively of the product which is a subject matter of the case, as per their own admissions in their statement. The O.P.No.2, marketise and sells its’ products through the O.P.No.1.

 

9.                     The term “consumer” is defined as underneath in section 2(1) (d) (i) as here under.

 

“Consumer” means any person who— Buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose;

 

 10.                  Further, the term trader is defines in section 2(1) (q) and herein after extracted.

 [

“trader” in relation to any goods means a person who sells or distributes any goods for sale and includes the manufacturer thereof, and where such goods are sold or distributed in package form, includes the packer thereof:

 

 

11.                   Similarly the term manufacturer finds its’ definition in section 2(1) (j) of the Consumer Protection Act.

“manufacturer “means a person who- Makes or manufactures any goods or part thereof; or Does not make or manufacture any goods but assembles parts thereof made or manufacture by others; or Puts or causes to be put his own mark on any goods made or manufactured by any other manufacturer.

12.                   In the instant case, the complainant and both opponents perfectly fit into their respective definitions and the evasive denial of    the opponents as discussed supra is of no avail and we hold that, there remains a clear relationship of supplier and consumer and answer the point accordingly.

 

13.  Point No.2.       The matter being of extreme complicated nature, an expert opinion was sought from the Joint Director of Agriculture, Bidar to have filed survey and study of the file containing literatures of the product.  Primafacie, the literature mandates to apply the product Diurex on Sugarcane in the pre-emergence stage, where  from the photographs submitted by the complainant, it is seen that, the canes in the field had grown to about 2 to 2 ½ feet in size, when the herbicide was applied in the field.  No wonder then, the chemical agents in the herbicide have adversely affected the crop.  The report of the Joint Director of Agriculture has albeit reported that, the herbicide has no adverse effect on sugarcane being selective in nature, but  para-2 of the complainants’ complaint shows that, he had acquired some allied products with herbicide and used them in the field.  No explanation is forthcoming from the complainants’ side, as to whether he had sprayed only Diurex or something else in the field which resulted in the crops waning.  That, apart, the complainant has never filed any representation or complaint before the Agriculture officers regarding the disastrous effect, which could have been assessed at the threshold.  There appears to be an improper application of the herbicide in the field, violating the literature of the product and therefore, deficiency of service cannot be attributed to the opponents.  Hence, we hold the point accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-

 

:: ORDER ::

 

   

1.  The complaint is dismissed.
2.  There would be no order as to costs or otherwise.

 

 

 

( Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this  31^st day of March-2017 )

 

 

 

   Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                  

Member.                                                                President.      

 

                                                                                     

 

 

Documents produced by the complainant

1. Ex.P.1&  P.2- courier receipt. 
2. Ex.P.3- Legal notice, date: 20.05.2014.
3. Ex.P.4- Recommendation for use of Herbicides.
4. Ex.P.5 to P.16- Photographs.(12).
5. Ex.P.17- Copy of receipt of land registration, date: 26.02.2014.
6. Ex.P.18- Copy of sale deed. Date: 26.02.2014.
7. Ex.P.19- Copy of receipt land registration date: 26.02.2014.
8. Ex.P.20- Copy of sale deed.
9. Ex.P.21- Literature of the product.

 

 Documents produced by the Opponent/s

 

• Nil  -

 

 

 

 

 

Sri. Shankrappa H.,                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad,                                  

       Member.                                                                      President.

 

 

sb.