Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu,  President.

1.       The   complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) on the allegations that he is an agriculturist and owes about 7 acres of land and is member of Opposite Party No.1 society. Swaran Singh is Secretary and Gulagan Singh is the salesman of the said society. Further alleges that the complainant approached the Opposite Parties and purchased pesticides worth Rs.3100/- i.e. Rs.2200/- for one pesticides and  Rs.900/- for second pesticides for  planting the paddy crop vide invoice No. 1759 dated 05.06.2020 and the payment was made through cheque dated 05.06.2020, but the Opposite Party No.1 delivered one pesticides correctly while other pesticide was wrongly supplied. At the time of supplying pesticides, the Opposite Party No.1 assured the complainant that the same are meant for plantation of paddy while the same was for grass. The complainant has grown the paddy in two acres of land through Gurcharan Singh and his associates, but the said pesticides given adverse affect and the entire paddy could not grow. In this regard, the news was also published in the Daily Ajit Bathinda dated 28.6.2020 and 30.06.2020. The complainant has to uproot the damaged paddy crops with tractor and thus suffered a loss of Rs.60,000/- as the complainant was compelled to plant the paddy again. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Opposite Parties and requested to make good the loss due to wrong pesticides sold to him, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant.   Due to the above said deficiency in service of the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant suffered mental harassment and economic problems.   Vide instant  complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       To direct the Opposite Parties to make the payment of Rs.60,000/- for supply of wrong pesticide 2 litre rift and also to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension, harassment and deficient service or any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission,  may deem fit be granted.

Hence, the present complaint is filed by the Complainant  for the redressal of his grievances.

2.       Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint  by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable; that  the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint;  that the complaint is absolutely false and frivolous. The complainant is a retired employee of health department and  he is a handicapped and unable to cultivate any land on his own level, without the help of his helpers/ agriculture workers/ seeri. The Opposite Parties never seen the alleged agricultural land of the complainant nor seen him cultivating nor seen the alleged crop to be sown by the complainant.   The complainant is a well educated person and retired from the health department and as such, he has well knowledge regarding the pesticides for crops or herbicide (nadeen nashak to destroy  grass etc. growing in the field alongwith crop) and the complainant has also knowledge of difference between the pesticide for more growth of crop and herbicide/ pesticides. Moreover, the Opposite Parties have also knowledge regarding the pesticides for crops or herbicide (nadeen nashak to destroy  grass etc. growing in the field alongwith crop). So, the question of giving wrong pesticides by the Opposite Parties and using wrong pesticide by the complainant does not arise at all. Moreover, the complainant specifically demanded the pesticide for herbicide by name i.e. Kabuto and Sokusai and the pesticide Kabuto is available on one liter packing and the complainant purchased two liters Kabuto in two containers. Similarly, the pesticide Sokusai is available in five litres packing which was purchased by the complainant. But it is wrong that the Opposite Parties supplied wrong pesticide instead of the pesticide alleged by the complainant. The Opposite Parties never sold any pesticide to the complainant meant for plantation of paddy crop as he never so demanded, rather the complainant demanded herbicide pesticide from the Opposite Parties which was provided to the complainant.    In view of this, it is made clear that the complaint filed by the complainant is false and fabricated and is liable to be dismissed.   On merits, Opposite Parties took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections and hence, it is prayed that the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed against Opposite Parties.               

3.       In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his  affidavit Ex.C1, affidavit of Sh.Jasvir Singh son of Mohinder Singh Ex.C2, affidavit of Sh.Gurcharan Singh son of Teja Singh Ex.C3 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C4 to Ex.C9 and closed his evidence.

4.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties also tendered  into evidence affidavit of Sh.Swaran Singh Ex.Ops/1, affidavit of Gurlagan Singh Salesman Ex.Ops/2 and affidavit of Buta Singh Ex.Ops/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Parties. 

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.

6.       During the course of arguments, ld.counsel for the Complainant has  mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and  contended that  the written version  filed on behalf of Opposite Party  has not been filed by an authorized person. Therefore, the written version so filed is not maintainable. Opposite Party  is limited society and written version has been filed on the basis of special power of attorney given  to ld.counsel for the Opposite Party.  Further contended that the complainant is an agriculturist and owes about 7 acres of land and is member of Opposite Party No.1 society. Swaran Singh is Secretary and Gulagan Singh is the salesman of the said society. Further alleges that the complainant approached the Opposite Parties and purchased pesticides worth Rs.3100/- i.e. Rs.2200/-for one pesticides and  Rs.900/- for second pesticides for  planting the paddy crop vide invoice No. 1759 dated 05.06.2020 and the payment was made through cheque dated 05.06.2020, but the Opposite Party No.1 delivered one pesticides correctly while other pesticide was wrongly supplied. At the time of supplying pesticides, the Opposite Party No.1 assured the complainant that the same are meant for plantation of paddy while the same was for grass. The complainant has grown the paddy in two acres of land through Gurcharan Singh and his associates, but the said pesticides given adverse affect and the entire paddy could not grow. In this regard, the news was also published in the Daily Ajit Bathinda dated 28.6.2020 and 30.06.2020. The complainant has to uproot the damaged paddy crops with tractor and thus suffered a loss of Rs.60,000/- as the complainant was compelled to plant the paddy again. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Opposite Parties and requested to make good the loss due to wrong pesticides sold to him, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant.

7.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant and contended that the complainant is a retired employee of health department and  he is a handicapped and unable to cultivate any land on his own level, without the help of his helpers/ agriculture workers/ seeri. The Opposite Parties never seen the alleged agricultural land of the complainant nor seen him cultivating nor seen the alleged crop to be sown by the complainant.   The complainant is a well educated person and retired from the health department and as such, he has well knowledge regarding the pesticides for crops or herbicide (nadeen nashak to destroy  grass etc. growing in the field alongwith crop) and the complainant has also knowledge of difference between the pesticide for more growth of crop and herbicide/ pesticides. Moreover, the Opposite Parties have also knowledge regarding the pesticides for crops or herbicide (nadeen nashak to destroy  grass etc. growing in the field alongwith crop). So, the question of giving wrong pesticides by the Opposite Parties and using wrong pesticide by the complainant does not arise at all. Moreover, the complainant specifically demanded the pesticide for herbicide by name i.e. Kabuto and Sokusai and the pesticide Kabuto is available on one liter packing and the complainant purchased two liters Kabuto in two containers. Similarly, the pesticide Sokusai is available in five litres packing which was purchased by the complainant. But it is wrong that the Opposite Parties supplied wrong pesticide instead of the pesticide alleged by the complainant. The Opposite Parties never sold any pesticide to the complainant meant for plantation of paddy crop as he never so demanded, rather the complainant demanded herbicide pesticide from the Opposite Parties which was provided to the complainant.

8.       Perusal of the contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant   shows  that  the written version  filed on behalf of Opposite Party has not been filed by an authorized person. Therefore, the written version so filed is not maintainable. The Opposite Party  is limited society and written version has been filed on the basis of special power of attorney given  to ld.counsel for the Opposite Party.  In this regard, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Shubh  Shanti  Services  Limited  v.  Manjula S.Agarwalla and others (2005) 5 SCC 30, decided on 11.05.2005 has  and observed to the following effect:

 “..............As already stated, it has not been  averred in the plaint nor sought to be proved that  any resolution had been passed by the Board of  Directors  of  the  plaintiff  company  authorising  Shri A.K. Shukla to sign, verify and institute the  suit.   It  has  also  not  been  averred  that  the  memorandum/articles of the plaintiff company give ny right to Shri A.K. Shukla to sign, verify and  institute  a  suit  on  behalf  of  the  plaintiff  company.  It, therefore, follows that the plaint  has been instituted by Shri A.K. Shukla only on  the  authority  of  Sh.  Raj  K.Shukla,  CEO  of  the  plaintiff  company.   Such  an  authority  is  not  recognized under law and, therefore, I held that  the  plaint  has  not  been  instituted  by  an  authorised  person.   Issue  No.1  is  accordingly,  decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the  defendants.”

Further,  Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a judgment (2011)II Supreme Court Cases 524 titled as “State Bank of Travancore Vs. Kingston Computers India Pvt. Ltd.” and in para no.11 of the judgment,  has held that

“the plaint was not instituted by an authorized person. On the plea that one authority letter dated 02.01.2003 was issued by Sh. R.K.Shukla in favour of Sh. A.K.Shukla. Further plaint failed to place on record its memorandum/articles to show that Sh. R.k.Shukla has been vested with the powers or had been given a general power of attorney on behalf of the Company to sign, verify and institute the suit on behalf of the Company.”

Recently Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at  Chandigarh in FAO No.1235 of 2015 decided on 25.01.2017 in case titled as L.G.Electronics India Private Limited Vs. Sita Ram Chaudhary also held that the plaint instituted by  an unauthorized person has no legal effect.

9.       For the sake of arguments, for the time being, if the written reply filed by Opposite Parties is presumed to be correct, the next  plea  raised by the Opposite Parties is that Opposite Parties never seen the alleged agricultural land of the complainant nor seen him cultivating nor seen the alleged crop to be sown by the complainant.   The complainant is a well educated person and retired from the health department and as such, he has well knowledge regarding the pesticides for crops or herbicide (nadeen nashak to destroy  grass etc. growing in the field alongwith crop) and the complainant has also knowledge of difference between the pesticide for more growth of crop and herbicide/ pesticides. Moreover, the Opposite Parties have also knowledge regarding the pesticides for crops or herbicide (nadeen nashak to destroy  grass etc. growing in the field alongwith crop). So, the question of giving wrong pesticides by the Opposite Parties and using wrong pesticide by the complainant does not arise at all.

10.   It is not the denial of the parties  that the complainant purchased pesticides worth Rs.3100/- i.e. Rs.2200/-for one pesticides and  Rs.900/- for second pesticides for  planting the paddy crop vide invoice No. 1759 dated 05.06.2020 and the payment was made through cheque dated 05.06.2020, copy of the bill is placed on record as Ex.C7. But we do not understand that as per the version of the Opposite Parties itself that the complainant is an educated person and is a retired from health department, then why being an  educated person, he will put the wrong pesticides in his fields knowingly to destroy his own crop. No educated person will destroy his own crop by putting wrong pesticides on his crop. Moreover, what is the enmity of the complainant with the Opposite Parties to do so, because the complainant is admitted a member of said society, nor the Opposite Parties ever alleged that the complainant has any enmity with them and why the complainant will get published the news regarding the damage of crop in the news papers and why the complainant will again sow the paddy crop again by spending huge amount for second time.  To prove his version, the complainant has filed his duly sworn affidavit Ex. C1 alongwith affidavit of Jasvir Singh son of Mohinder Singh (Ex.C2) in which he specifically deposed that he works as contractor to sow the crops in the fields and the complainant approached the Opposite Parties for purchasing pesticides for planting the paddy crop. Not only this, Gurcharan Singh son of Teja Singh vide his  duly sworn affidavit Ex.C3 has also deposed so and contrary to this, the Opposite Parties have not denied these deposition of the witnesses produced by the complainant. The complainant has also produced the copies of newspaper cutting Ex.C8 and Ex.C9 and these documents have not been rebutted by the Opposite Parties by filing any cogent and convincing evidence. Hence, we are of the view that that the complainant must have suffered financial loss as well as mental tension and harassment due to wrong pesticides sold by the Opposite Parties to the complainant and due to sowing his paddy crop for second time. On this count, the Complainant prayed for directing the Opposite Parties to make the payment of Rs.60,000/- for supplying wrong pesticides 2 litre rift  and Rs.20,000/- on account of compensation for causing him mental tension and harassment, but we are of the view that the claim for compensation to the tune of Rs.60,000/- appears to be exorbitant and excessive. The rationale behind grant of compensation has been to compensate a party of the loss occasioned by it. It is none of the intention of the legislature while legislating the Consumer Protection Act to enrich a particular party at the cost of the other. The compensation has to be awarded in commensuration with the loss occasioned to the complainant. In our considered view, ends of justice would  be fully met if the complainant is awarded lump-sum compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and we award the same accordingly.

11.     In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant against  the Opposite Parties and the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to make good the loss of the complainant amounting to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousands only) alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 09.07.2020 till its actual realization. Opposite Parties are  also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousands only)  as lumpsum compensation to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Parties jointly or severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the Complainant shall be at liberty to  get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Commission.   Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.  

8.       Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.

          This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the State Government has not appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as due to pandemic of COVID-19.

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated: 13.04.2022.