BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.      

                                                          Complaint No.: 223 of 2016.

                                                          Date of Institution: 17.10.2016.

                                                          Date of Order:    21.01.2019.

Bhim Singh son of Shri Hari Ram, resident of village Gujrani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

                                                                             ….Complainant.

                                      Versus

1.       Tanwar Agriculture Store, Naya Bazar, Bhiwani through its owner/Proprietor.

2.       Dhanuka Agritek Limited, 861-862, Joshi Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.

3.       United Phosphorus Limited, Registered office 3-11, G. I. D. C. Wapi (Gujrat) 396195.

…...Opposite Parties.

                             Complaint under Section 12 of the

 Consumer Protection, Act, 1986.

Before: -      Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

                   Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.

                   Hon’ble Ms. Renu Chaudhary, Member.

Present:       Shri Shankar Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri Kanwar Pal, representative for OP No. 1.

                   Shri Anil Kumar, representative for the OP No. 2.

                   OP No. 3 already exparte.

ORDER:-

PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT

                   Brief facts of the case are that complainant has purchased pesticides for total Rs.2220/- (one packet 200 gram Rs.1180/-, one packet 100 gram Rs.580/- and two packets Rs.460/-) on 4.7.2016 from OP No. 1 for spraying the same in his 3 acres of paddy crops for the treatment of weeds standing in his paddy crops.  It is further alleged that the complainant has sprayed these pesticide in his 3 acre paddy crops, as per the instructions of the OP No. 1 for destroying the weeds standing in the paddy crops, but it shows no effect on the weeds standing in the paddy crops.  It is further alleged that on this complainant approached the OP No. 1 on 13.7.2016 and told him all the things, but he become furious and did not listen the complainant.  It is further alleged that the OP No. 1 told that he discussed the matter with the representative as when they come.  It is further alleged that the complainant had torn out the weeds from the paddy crops through labour by paying huge expenses to them as labour charges due to non- working of pesticide sold by OP No. 1 and developed & produced by the OPs No. 2 and 3.  It is further alleged that the OPs have not return the amount of the complainant despite several requests.  Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Hence, the present complaint.

2.                OPs No. 1 & 2 appeared and contested the complaint by filing their written statement denying all the allegations of complainant.  It is alleged that the complainant has failed to mention his complaint as to what product was purchased by him from OP No. 1 and complainant has not filed any bill/invoice.  It is further alleged that in the absence of invoice and not mentioning the name of pesticide/herbicide, no liability can be fastened upon the OPs.  It is further alleged that the different weeds need different treatment and each pesticide/herbicide has its different properties to suit different type of crops and weeds and in the absence of particulars of the product purchased and applied by the complainant, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.  It is further alleged that the complainant has not adduced any evidence and scientific proof that the crop was damaged due to usage of the product manufactured by the Dhanuka Agritech Limited.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                OP No. 3 on appearance filed its separate written statement alleging that the complainant has not given the particulars of the medicine/pesticide or chemical substance, which he has allegedly purchased or used in his fields.  It is further alleged that there is a separate department i.e. agriculture department in every District of Haryana to look after the grievance of the farmers, which could inspect the fields and the effected crops, if any, but complainant failed to do so.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.                Ld. Counsel for the complainant in support of his case placed on record affidavits Annexure CW1/A to CW3/A and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C3 in his evidence to prove his case and closed the evidence. 

5.                The OPs have placed on record Ex. RW1/A to RW1/C and Ex. RW2 and closed the evidence. 

6.                We have heard ld. counsel for the complainant and the representative of the opposite parties at length and have gone through the case file carefully.

7.                The first plea taken by the OPs is that the complainant has not placed on record any bill/invoice is not tenable, because the OP No. 1 has issued estimate instead of bill and the complainant has placed on record the copy of estimate.  The second plea taken by the OPs is that the complainant has not mentioned the name of the pesticide/herbicide is also not tenable, because the complainant has placed on record copy of estimate issued by OP No. 1 having the detail of pesticide/herbicide.

From the above facts, it is clearly proved the OPs are taking vague pleas just to escape from their responsibility.

8.                 After having gone through the material available on the file, we are of the considered view that the complaint deserves acceptance, as there is deficiency & unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.  The complainant has successfully proved his case by placing on record certain documents i.e. his duly sworn affidavit Ex. CW1/A, affidavit of Shri Gulab Ram as Ex. CW2/A, affidavit of Shri Bhanu Partap as Ex. CW3/A, copy of receipt & legal notice Annexure C1 & C2 and copy of estimate as Annexure C3.  On the other hand, the OPs are just taking vague & false pleas to avoid their responsibility. 

9.                In view of above fact & circumstances and in the interest of justice, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed with costs and the OPs is directed to:-

i.        To pay Rs.2220/- to the complainant being cost of the pesticides along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint till its realization.

The compliance of the order shall be made within 30 days from the date of the order.  In case of default, the OPs shall liable to pay the interest @ 18% p.a. on total amount as directed above vide clause No. i & iii from the date of default i.e. after 30 days from the date of this order i.e. 21.1.2019.  Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 21.01.2019.       

(Renu Chaudhary)         (Parmod Kumar)        (Manjit Singh Naryal)

Member.                        Member.                         President,

                                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                                   Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.