Haryana

Karnal

218/2011

Amit Kumar S/o Shri Shyam Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Biana Primary Agricultural Co-op Society Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjiv Saxena

10 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.  

                                                          Complaint No.218 of 2011

                                                               Date of instt.: 18.04.2011

                                                          Date of decision:11.03.2016

 

Amit Kumar son of Sh.Shyam Lal resident of village Randoli tehsil Indri district Karnal.

.                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1.The Biana Primary Agriculture Co-op Society Limited Biana District Karnal through its Manager.

2.Indian Potash Limited No.727, Anna Salai, Cheennai-6, through its  Managing Director.

 

                                                                           ……… Opposite Parties.

                    Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.                

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

Present:-        Sh.Naresh Kumar Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Amit Gupta Advocate for the Opposite Party no.1.

                   Sh.R.K.Kamra Advocate for the Opposite Party no.2.

 

ORDER:                   

                                   

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act - 1986( hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the averments that he purchased 50 bags of urea IPL from the Opposite Party no.1 @ Rs.265.50 per bag, for an amount of Rs.15399/-, vide bill No.2975 dated 22.01.2011.The said urea was manufactured by Opposite Party no.2. He used 30 bags of urea in his land measuring 30 acres on 22.1.2011 itself and the remaining bags were given by him to the other farmers from whom he had borrowed urea bags. He found that urea was of inferior quality and the same was converted into  “Dalles”. Similar complaint was  made to him by other farmers,  whom he had given  the bags. It was observed that urea used by him in his fields had no effect on the crop. Therefore, he made complaint to the Opposite Parties   that urea supplied to him was of inferior quality and of  expired date, but the Opposite Parties paid no heed to his complaint. Then, he got  issued a legal notice to the Opposite Party no.1. One bag of urea, which was not used by him, was sent by him  for laboratory test and report from the laboratory was received that urea was of non standard quality. Thus, inferior quality urea was supplied to him by the Opposite Parties which caused him mental agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

 

2.                 Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Party no.1 filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not legally tenable; that the complaint does not disclose any cause of action; that the complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of the necessary parties and that the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum.

 

                   On merits, it has been submitted that urea supplied to the complainant was of standard quality. There was no deficiency of any kind in the  in the urea supplied to him. Even otherwise, he never utilized the urea purchased by him rather the same it was sold by him to  Gurdev son of Anokh  Singh resident of Dera Biana @ Rs.265.50 per bag and thereby earned profit. Urea was  supplied to the complainant in the same condition as was received from the Opposite Party No.2.  It has further been averred that report of quality control Laboratory (Fertilizer) Karnal relied upon by the complainant does not pertain to the urea supplied to the complainant.  Block Agriculture Officer, Indri had collected the samples  of urea from the premises of Opposite Party no.1 on 27.1.2011.  On the request made by the Opposite Party no.2, the samples were sent for  analysis  to the Director Agriculture, Panchkula. After analysis  the contents in the urea were found to be 45.40%  instead of  recommended 46% and  particle size of the  urea was found be a bit  less , but it was found that the  said minor discrepancy does not in any way affect the effectiveness of the urea. Thus, the complainant could not suffer any loss on account of use of urea purchased by  him Opposite Party no.1.

 

3.                 The Opposite Party  no.2  filed  separate written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant is not consumer of Opposite Party no.2; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and that the complaint is barred u/s 13(1)(c) of the Act.

 

                   On merits, it has been pleaded  that Opposite Party no.2  prior to loading the urea  got it tested from the laboratory of Govt. of India . The complainant sold the  urea purchased by him from the Society to other farmers and had not used the same in his fields as alleged. It could not be ascertained on the  next day or within 3-4 days that urea allegedly used by the complainant had no effect on the crop. The report allegedly filed by the complainant does not disclose about the place of collecting sample and that too either from the same bag allegedly purchased by the complainant or from other bag. It has been asserted that urea sold to complainant was not of inferior quality and the complainant had not  suffered any loss on account of use of the same. There was no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.  The other allegations made in the complaint have not been admitted.

 

3.                 In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C9 have been tendered.

 

4.                 On the other hand, in evidence of the Opposite Parties affidavit of Sh.Prem Singh Sales representative of Oppoiste Party no.2 Ex.O1, affidavit of Gurdev Singh son of Sh.Anokh Singh  Ex.O2, affidavit of Sh.Babu Ram Secretary of Oppoiste Party no1 Ex.R1 and documents Ex.O3 and Ex.R2  to Ex.R11 have been tendered.

 

5.                 We have appraised the evidence on record,  the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.

 

6.                 The complainant had purchased 58 bags of urea from Opposite Party No.1 on 22.1.2011. The lot of urea bags was manufactured and supplied by the Opposite Party no.2.As per the case of the complainant  the urea was of inferior quality and expired and the same was not effective for the growth of the crop. The complainant got tested the bag of urea from Quality Control Laboratory (Fertilizer) Karnal through Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal. The report of the laboratory is Ex.C3, according to which the urea was found non standard  as the same contained Nitrogen  as 27.86% instead of 46%.

 

7.                 The Opposite Parties have produced documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R5 regarding purchase of 300 bags of Urea by the Opposite Party No.1 manufactured by Opposite Party no.2.  The documents Ex.R6 and Ex.R7 show that the Opposite Party no.2 had filed appeal for re-testing of the sample of urea before the Director General  Agriculture cum Appellate Authority. After reanalysis  the report was prepared by the Deputy Director , Regional Fertilizer Control Laboratory Madhavaram Milk Colony, Chennai, according to which the sample contained Nitrogen 45,40% instead of 46% and the particle  size  was 73.95% instead of  minimum 89%.The sample was declared non standard as the same was not according to the specifications and failed in total Nitrogen and particle size.   The report of the Central Laboratory Ex.R7 is to prevail over the report of Quality Control Laboratory (Fertilizer) Karnal Ex.C3. Thus, it is established that the sample of urea taken from the stock of the Opposite Party no.1 was non standard as there was variation of Nitrogen  composition to the extent of 0.60% against permissible limit of 0.2% units and the particle size was also not as per prescribed specifications. The letter of Deputy Director Agriculture and  Notified authority, Karnal Ex.R8 to the Opposite Party indicates that deficiency of Nitrogen contents and particle size in the sample of units had no effect on the growth and quality, therefore, the warning was given to the Opposite Parties to maintain quality and standard of urea in future.

 

8.                     The complainant has produced copies of khasra girdwari for the crop of Kharif 2009 to Rabi 2013 Ex.C11 to Ex.C12, wherein he has been recorded in possession of the land measuring about 26 Kanals only. No document has been produced to show that he owned or possessed thirty acres of land and had used the urea purchased by him from Opposite Party no.1 in the crop existing in the land measuring 30 acres. He himself has admitted that he had given some bags to other farmers from whom he had previously borrowed urea bags. Affidavit of Gurdev Singh Ex.C10 is to the effect that he had purchased 50 bags of urea from complainant @ Rs.265.50  per bag at the spot when he had purchased 58 bags of urea from Opposite Party no.1. He further submitted that he used those bags of urea for his crop and urea was found quite standard for growth and yield of crop.

 

9.                 From the aforediscussed evidence it is crystal clear that there was minor deficiency in Nitrogen contents and particle size of the urea sold by the Opposite Party no.1 to the complainant, but the same was effective for the growth and yield of the crop. Thus, the complainant has failed to establish that he suffered any financial loss on account of  non standard urea sold to him by the Opposite Party no.1. However, the fact remains that the urea  sold by the Opposite Party no.1  and manufactured  and supplied by the Opposite Party no.2 was  not of standard quality and the same was found non standard , though the difference was minor. The Opposite Parties were expected to sell urea  to the farmers of standard quality . Selling non standard urea to the complainant certainly could   cause some mental agony and pain to the complainant. Therefore, he is entitled to get compensation for the mental pain and agony suffered by him on account of supply of non standard urea to him by the Opposite Parties.

 

10.                    As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.20, 000/- to the complainant as compensation for the mental pain and agony suffered by him and for the litigation expenses within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing  the complainant shall be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum after thirty days  from the date of this order till its actual realization.  The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:11.03.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member

 

 

Present:-        Sh.Naresh Kumar Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Amit Gupta Advocate for the Opposite Party no.1.

                   Sh.R.K.Kamra Advocate for the Opposite Party no.2.

 

                   Arguments heard. For orders, the case is adjourned to 11.3.2016.

Announced
dated:10.03.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member

 

Present:-        Sh.Naresh Kumar Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Amit Gupta Advocate for the Opposite Party no.1.

                   Sh.R.K.Kamra Advocate for the Opposite Party no.2.

 

                   Vide our separate order of the even date, the  present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:11.03.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member