Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/25/2014

Narinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The kalaundi - Opp.Party(s)

Sh PS Ladher

30 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                          Consumer Complaint No.25 of 2014

                                                                                                                                  Date of institution          :  20.02.2014                                                                                                                                                     Date of decision          :  30.04.2015

Narinder Singh son of Sh. Darshan Singh, resident of village Kandipur, Tehsil Bassi Pathanan, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. The Kalaundhi Multi Purpose Co-Op, agricultural Service Society Ltd., Kalaundhi, Tehsil Bassi Pathanan, District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Secretary.
2. Markfed Agro Chemical, 7-8 B Industrial Estate, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, through its M.D./Authorized Person.
3. The United Phosphorus Limited, An  ISO 9001,14001 & OHSAS 18001 Company, IGC, Samba(J&K) through its M.D./ Authorized Person.

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

Smt. Veena Chahal, Member.

Present : Sh.P.S. Ladhar, Adv. Cl. for the complainant 

               Sh. S.S.Maan, Adv. Cl. for OPs No.1&3.     

              Sh. R.N. Goyal, Adv.Cl. for OP No.2.

 

ORDER

By Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

                 Complainant, Narinder Singh son of Sh. Darshan Singh, resident of village Kandipur, Tehsil Bassi Pathanan, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.             The complainant is having Society Account No.132 with OP No.1 and on the suggestion of OP No.1, he purchased 11 boxes of Herbicide Brand name Markpower, marketed by Markfed from OP No.1 through its secretary and salesman, vide bill dated 06.01.2014 for the sum of Rs. 4,400/-. The payment was made through cheque No.798056. At the time of purchase of said boxes, OP No.1 suggested that one box is for the spray in one acre wheat crop field only and it was also assured that the said Markpower is very high quality and by using the said Markpower, the complainant can get the crops in excess weight. As per the assurance of OP No.1 and instructions given in the Pamphlet, complainant sprayed the 11 boxes of said Herbicide Markpower on 06.01.2014 in his 11 acres of wheat crop. But instead of getting the excess wheat crop, all wheat crops in 11 acres have been totally damaged and the complainant suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.5 lacs. Thereafter, on 14.01.2014, when the crop started damaging, the complainant requested OP No.1 to find out the solution of damaging crop but it remained putting the matter aside on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, the complainant served a legal notice on 21.01.2014 through registered post but it vain. It shows gross negligence, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to pay Rs.5 lacs on account of damaged crops and Rs.10/- lacs, as compensation for mental tension, undue and unnecessary harassment being suffered by the complainant, along with interest at the rate of 24 % per annum from 20.01.2014 till actual and final realization of the amount.

3.              The complaint is contested by the opposite parties. In reply to the complaint OPs No. 1 and 3 stated that OP No.2 has supplied the Harbiside/Mark Power in the market after passing its sample from the competent authorized laboratory. OP No.3 has supplied 9000 boxes of the said Mark Power to the Markfed, District Fatehgarh Sahib and the same has supplied to all the co-operative societies through the Markfed and then the same has been sold by the societies to its members in thousands. There is no complaint received from any person till date of any kind regarding the said Mark Power except the complainant. OP No.1 had purchased 150 boxes of Mark Power through Markfed and has supplied/sold the same to its many members and there is no complaint of any kind. It is further stated that the complainant never made a complaint regarding the alleged damage to his crops due to the said Mark Power to any officer of agriculture department, however, the chief of Agriculture Department is available in any District Head Quarter. The complainant has not suffered any loss of its crops due to the said Mark Power. Thus, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.              In reply to the complaint OP No.2 stated that no loss could be caused due to the spraying of Mark Power Herbicide and the crops of the complainant were not damaged. The photo, if any, does not relate to the crop of the complainant and had been procured by the complainant to create evidence. All other allegations made in the complaint are denied and it is prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.              In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered copy of pass book Ex. C-1, copy of receipt dt. 06.01.2014 Ex. C-2, copy of statement Ex. C-3, copy of bank statement of PNB Ex. C-4, copy of cheque dated 29.05.2014 Ex. C-5, copies of entries in the Cooperative Kissan Credit Card Ex. C-6 to Ex. C-8, photograph Ex. C-9, empty box Ex. C-10, copy of legal notice Ex. C-11, copies of postal receipts Ex. C-12, copy of application Ex. C-13, copy of application to Deputy Commissioner, Fatehgarh Sahib Ex. C-14, affidavit Ex. C-15, affidavit of Roshan Singh Ex. C-16, affidavit of Sukhwinder Singh, Lambardar, Ex. C-17, affidavit of Sital Singh, Member Panchayat, Ex. C-18, copy of enterprise budget Ex. C-19 and Ex. C-19/1 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal OPs No. 1 and 3 tendered affidavit of Kesar Singh, Ex. OP1/1 and affidavit of Sanjay Kumar, Ex. OP3/1 and closed the evidence. OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Deepinder Singh, Bhogal, Ex. OP2/1 and closed the evidence.

6.              The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that complainant, had on suggestion of OP No.1, purchased 11 boxes of Herbicide Brand name Markpower, marketed by markfed from OP No.1 through its secretary and salesman, vide bill dated 06.01.2014 for the sum of Rs. 4,400/-. The payment was made through cheque No.798056, at the time of purchase of said boxes. OP No.1 suggested that one box is for the spray in one acre wheat crop field. It was also assured that the said Markpower is very high quality and by using the said Markpower, the complainant can get the crops in excess weight. As per the assurance of OP No.1 and instructions given in the Pamphlet, complainant sprayed the 11 boxes of said Herbicide Markpower on 06.01.2014 in his 11 acres of wheat crop. But instead of getting the excess wheat crop, all wheat crops in 11 acres had been totally damaged and the complainant suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.5 lacs. The ld. counsel further stated that the complainant had approached the different agriculture authorities with regard to the damaged crops. The ld. counsel for the complainant has pleaded that from the aforesaid evidence it becomes ample clearer that the OP No.1 has clearly washed away his hands from their responsibility and liability. The ld. counsel argued that the act and conduct of the OPs clearly prove the deficiency of service committed by OPs.

7.              On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP No. 1 to 3 has submitted that the present complaint has already become infractions, as the complainant before contacting the agriculture and other related officials of the department had already harvested the crops and sold the same. He stated that lots of other farmers had also purchased the same seed from the markfed Company but none were found to be defected. The ld. counsel also stated that before the disposal of the said crop the complainant should have at least preserved a sample, so that complainant could have obtained a technical report of the alleged defective seeds and claim his rightful compensation if any made out. The ld. counsel argued that the complainant failed to follow the prescribed procedure duly notified by the Government, in order to prove whether the agriculture authorities gave a fact finding report or not is missing from the evidence and the same is very essence and without the said report this Forum cannot adjudicate the present complaint in a summary manner. He prayed that the matter shall be referred to the competent court or authority.

8.              After going through the pleadings and evidence and submissions of the ld. counsel for the parties, we feel the present complaint cannot be decided in a summary manner, as in order to prove the condition/status of the alleged crop, it will require voluminous evidence which includes oral and cross examination etc, in order to come to a proper conclusion. We may in this case refer to a decision of Three, Hon’ble Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Synco Industries Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and Ors. I (2002) CPJ 16 (SC), in which Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed “where complicated questions of law and facts are involved the Forum under the Consumer Protection Act may not be a proper Forum to dispose of such a case in summary fashion”. We feel in the present case also there are complicated questions of facts are involved, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Form. Accordingly, we are unable to decide the case in hand on merits, hence; we return the present complaint. The complainant is granted the liberty to approach the appropriate Court of law and may be entitled to the benefit of the observations of the Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute II(1995) CPJ 1 (SC) : 1995 3 SCC 583 for the purpose of exclusion of time spent before this Forum. The present complaint is disposed of with the aforementioned observation. Parties to bear the cost.

9.                The arguments on the complaint were heard on 28.04.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost. Copy of complaint be retained and consigned to the record room.

    Pronounced

    Dated:30.04.2015                                                                                                      (A.P.S.Rajput)                                                                                                                                                                       President

 

                              (Veena Chahal)   

                              Member