BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER

       DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BAGALKOT.

COMPLAINT NO.06/2018
 

DATE OF FILING: 08/01/2018

DATE OF DISPOSAL : 13^th day of November, 2018

   P r e  s e n t: 

01) Smt.Sharada.K.                                                    President…

     B.A.LL.B. (Spl) 

02) Smt. Sumangala.C.Hadli.                         Lady   Member…

                            B.A (Music)

V/s

  JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SMT.SHARADA.K.PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this Complaint u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred in short as OPs) for directions to Ops to refund Rs.600/- the selling price of the product Mahaveer S.C. Fipronil 5% S.C. insecticides with Rs.40,000/- towards compensation and Rs.50,000/- towards harassment and mental agony, Rs.5,000/- towards cost of this Complaint and any other relief to the complainant as it deems fit under the circumstances of the case.

2.    The brief fact of the case are as follows:

The complainant is a Government employee working as Police Constable has purchase Pesticides (insecticides) from O.P.No.1 and same is manufatured by O.P.2. The father in law of complainant by name Maruti S/o. Balappa Bhajantri who is an agriculturist has sowed onion seeds in his land and to spray insecticides chemical he told to complainant to bring insecticides from opponent No.1 for that complainant on 30/08/2017 approached O.P.No.1 and requested to suggest him the best insecticides chemical for onion crops and O.P.No.1 suggested O.P.2 product by name Mahaveer S.C. Fipronil 5% S.C. insecticides and complainant has purchased Mahaveer insecticides by paying Rs.600/- and O.P.1 had issued the receipt No.9852 dt: 30/08/2017 to the complainant.

Complainant further submits that, at that time he got shock after seeing the manufacturing date in which manufacture date mentioned as 06/08/2014 batch No.FIPO311BE net contain 500 ml and expired on 05/08/2016 and O.P.1 and 2 have over write on expiry date as 05/08/2018 for that again complainant approached O.P.1 with the product without opening the seal and requested O.P.1 to take back their product as same was expired on 05/08/2016 and O.P.No.1 and 2 have over write on the year from 2016 to 2018 and it is dangers to the onion crops. O.P.No.1 denied to take return of their product Mahaveer insecticides clearly attracts deficiency of service, breach of trust and unfair trade practice by opponents towards complainant and complainant has issued a legal notice to the O.Ps. on 09/10/2017 and in view of legal notice the O.P.No.1 had sent the reply notice and in page No.2 para No.2 of reply notice the O.P. has wrongly mentioned the date of manufacturing as 06/08/2016 though the original manufacturing date is 06/08/2014. Complainant further submits that in the reply notice the O.P.No.1 has offered for the exchange of product, but though the opponent s who are selling expired chemicals for the crops merely offering exchange of the product after issuing of the legal notice is illegal one. If the complainant without observing the manufacturing date and used said product on the onion crops may result heavy loss to him and his father in law.  The complainant has suffered lot and visited the Ops several times. Hence, complainant has filed the present Complaint.       

3. After receipt of Notice, O.Ps. appeared through his counsel and filed Objection.

The Objection of OP.1 is as follows:

The complaint of the complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious and not maintainable in the eye of law as well as on fact of the case. That the averments of the complaint are hereby denied in toto by this opponent except those that are specifically admitted there in after.  The complainant had suppressed the real fact of the case by misleading the factual situation by the imaginary story. The complainant is liable for compensation to this O.P.1 by paying Rs.10,000/- as compensatory cost U/s. 26 of C.P. Act and it may be true that complaint is a government employee working as a police constable. The complainant has purchased insecticides from this opponent is true but it is false to say that he had purchased for his father in law. O.P.1 further contended that it is false to say that complainant father in law Maruti S/o. Balappa Bhajantri who is an agriculture has sowed onion seeds in his land and to spray insecticides chemicals he told to complainant to bring insecticides from O.P.No.1 for that complainant on 30/08/2017 approached O.P.No.1 and requested to suggest him the best insecticides chemical for onion crops and O.P.No.1 suggested O.P.2 product by name Mahaveer S.C. Fipronil 5% S.C. insecticides and under O.P.1 instructed by paying Rs.600/- and O.P.1 has issued the receipt.

O.P.1 further contended that, it is false to say that at that time complainant got shock after seeing the manufacturing date in which manufacture date mentioned 06/08/2014 batch No-FIPO311BE net contain 500ML and expire on 05/08/2016 but the O.P.1 and 2 have over written on expiry date as 05/08/2018 for the again complainant approached O.P.1 with the O.P.1 to take back their product as same was expire on 05/08/2018 and it danger to the onion crops but O.P.1 denied to take return of their product Mahaveer insecticides clearly attracts deficiency of service breach of trust and unfair trade practice by the O.P. towards complainant. O.P.1 contended that O.P.1 admit the facts stated in para No.6 and 7 but denied the fact that O.P.1 has offered to exchange the product after the issue of legal notice and that from the averment of complaint stated in para No.3,4 and 5 it clearly shown that this complainant was not a consumer within the meaning of C.P. Act. Further there is no cause of action arose to this complainant to file this complaint against O.P.1. O.P.1 is running the seeds and chemical shop in the name of Sai Krishi Kendar in Bagalkot city since 20 years in prompt supply of good qualities of seeds and chemical to farmers around the Bagalkot. It is true that complainant is visited to O.P.1 shop and taken the chemical product of Mahaveer S.C. Fipronile as his well and wishes. After purchasing the said product with in the span of period complainant again visited to O.P.1 shop and show the expire date on which O.P.1 made offer to exchange the new product and complainant shown his some aggressive mood towards the servant of O.P.1 and shown his police power and made a crocien towards O.P.1 for filing the criminal case and demanded claim compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Therefore complainant is not entitled to claim any compensation under said heads. Hence it is humbly prayed to the Hon’ble Court be please to dismiss the complaint.

4.      The Objection of OP.2 is as follows:

The O.P.2 denied the allegations made by the complainant against O.P. 1 and 2.  O.P.2 had no any personal knowledge whether the complainant had purchased the product of Mahaveer insecticides from the O.P.1 and the said transaction was between the complainant and O.P.1. Hence the question of responsibility of O.P.2 had not at all arose. O.P.2 further contended that the complainant falsely submitted that the opponent No.1 had mentioned the date of manufacture as 06/08/2016 even though the date of manufacture was 06/08/2014. The complainant falsely submitted in the complaint stating that the O.P.1 had sold the expire dated chemical products. But the same is false because the O.P.1 had not at all sold the expired dated chemicals to the complainant. The complainant with an intention to grab amount from the opponents complainant had changed the date of manufacture and also date of expiry of use of the said chemical which were purchased by the complainant and O.P.2 had sold the chemical Mahaveer SC 500 ml on 22/04/2015 which had long expiry to the opponent No.1 the date of manufacture of the said chemical is 06/08/2014 and expire date is 05/08/2016. O.P.2 further contended that the said goods/chemicals were sent to the opponent No.1 by the O.P.2 through VRL Logistic Ltd. Transports on 24/04/2015 the receipt of the same is annexed to this objections. On 22/04/2015 the O.P.2 had sold the said chemical to the O.P.1. Afterwards the O.P.2 had not at all sold any chemicals to the O.P.1. Hence the transaction between the O.P.1 with complainant is no way concerned to the O.P.2 because the O.P.2 is not at higher authority or owner of the O.P.1. Hence after purchasing the said chemicals by the O.P.1 the further sale transaction by the O.P.1 with others/complainant is no way concerned to the O.P.2.   The complainant falsely implicated the O.P.2 in this case and the complainant is liable to pay the compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the O.P.2 on the reasons that unnecessarily he had made the O.P.2 as party. Hence, this Complaint is dismissed in the interest of justice and equity. 

5.      The complainant tendered affidavit evidence and filed documents in support of his case. On the other hand, OPs are filed Chief affidavit and filed documents in support of his case and closed the evidence of his side. Complainant has filed Written Arguments.

6.      On the basis of above said pleading, oral and documentary evidence, the following points arises for adjudications are as follows:  

Our Answer to the above points are:-

Point No.1 –Affirmative.

Point No.2: Affirmative.

Point No.3: Partly affirmative. 

Point No.4- As per the final order.

R E A S O N S

          7.  POINT NO.1:  The complainant filed this complaint against the OPs for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.   The complainant purchased the pesticide in the shop of OP NO.1, manufactured by OP No.2, for his father-in-law, who had sowed onion crop in his field.    But the OP No.1 denied that pesticide which has been purchased by the complainant is not used by the complainant, since it has to be used in a field of complainant’s father-in-law, since he had no right to file this complaint as a complainant.

          The first and foremost point has to be decided is whether the complainant have right to file the complaint against the OP as a complainant.  On-going through the record on file, the complainant himself purchased the pesticide by paying the amount from his pocket.  Moreover, the OP No.1 also admitted that the pesticide was purchased by the complainant.    Such being the fact, the OP cannot say that, he is not a consumer or he cannot file a complaint, simply because he had no land and he had not used it for the onion crop, here we have keenly observed that complainant himself, honestly said that the Purchased pesticide is sowed the land of his father in law.  There is no particular rule that a landless person cannot buy the pesticide for some. If so why the Op No.1 had not asked the complainant to submit the documents of purchasers land while selling the pesticide.  Such being the true fact, there is no any water to the contention of OP on this point.  Hence we answer the Point No.1 in the affirmative.

          8. Point No.2 & 3:- Since both the points are interlinked and identical we proceed both the points together.

          On going through the record, it is admitted fact that the complainant purchased the pesticide from OP No.1 and same is manufactured by OP No.2 Complainant’s father-in-law who is an agriculturist, who had sowed an onion seeds purchased by complainant in his land and sprayed insecticide. Then the complainant purchased the same on 30-08-2017 by OP No.1’s shop i.e., Mahaveer S.C. 5^thRonil 5% SC insecticide, which has been manufactured by OP No.2 and he had purchased another insecticide i.e., Mahaveer Insecticide and paid an amount of Rs.600/- bearing the receipt No.985 on the same day. 

          9. Further complainant submits that when he handed over the said chemicals to father-in-law of the complainant it came to know that the said chemical had expired on 05/2016 only, OP no.1 had been scratched on expiry date and overwritten as 05/2018, hence the complainant approached the OP and prayed to return back the money or exchange the pesticide with unexpired product to use the same in the land of his father-in-law. But the OP No.1 denied it and not returned the same.  Hence the complainant submits that he had issued the notice to the OPs and the OP NO.2 replied and offered that he exchanges the product. But the complainant submits that merely exchanging the product, does not teach the lesson to OP, Hence he filed this complaint.   

          10. On the other hand the OP No.1 admitted that complainant purchased the insecticide from the OP’s shop as per the complainant averment itself, Complainant does not own any property, since he has not used the same and he is not liable to file the compliant before this Forum. Further OP No.1 admitted that those products had been kept in the shop to return back it to the Company; unfortunately the boys in shop sold it in the absence of OP No.1. It is further submitted that the complainant came to the shop for exchange of the product at that time itself the OP No.1 was ready to exchange the same, but the complainant demanded Rs.50,000/- as compensation, hence the OP No.1 was kept quiet and further submits that there is no deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice.   On the other hand the OP NO.2 denied all the allegations made by the complainant. And submits that he was un aware of the transaction took place between the complainant and the OP No.1, moreover in the pesticide it has been clearly show the expiry and manufacturing date on the product.

          11. We heard both learned counsels and gone through the documents on record, it is undisputed fact that the complainant had purchased the pesticide in OP’s shop and it is very much clear that the OP NO.1 sold the expired pesticide to the complainant, since the OP NO.1 agreed that the sales man had sold that pesticide to the complainant without knowledge of the OP No.1. We have no opportunity to discuss in this case, since it is clear, it is fortunate or unfortunate, the expired pesticide was in the shop of the OP No.1.  It is bounden duty of the OP No.1 to sort out the same if the customer had used the expired pesticide, in their field there are more chances that the yielding will be spoiled and the agriculturist had to face lot of loss for the same.  Such being the fact, OP No.1 is made deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, since the complainant deserves for compensation.  Hence we answer the point No.2 in the affirmative and Point No.3 partly in the affirmative.

12. POINT NO. 4: In view of our findings on the above points,      In the result, we pass the following: 

       //O R D E R//        

1. The above Complaint is partly allowed with costs.
2. The OP NO.1 is directed to pay the sum of Rs.600/- which has been paid by the complainant with interest @ 9% from the date of purchase, till realization to the complainant.   

3. Further OP NO.1 is directed to pay compensation of Rs.6000/-towards mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

4. Further OP No.1 is directed to pay Rs.5000/- as a fine against his unfair trade practice and deficiency in service to the complainant.

5. Further OP No.1 is directed to pay litigation charges of Rs.2000/- to the complainant.

6. Further OP No.1 is directed to comply the order within 30 days, failing which OP NO.1 is liable to pay Rs.25,000/- to the legal aid of the Consumer Welfare Fund.

7. Further OP No.1 is directed to look after the pesticide which has been expiry is to be destroyed.

8. The Complaint against OP No.2 is dismissed.

9. Send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost.

    (Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 13^th day of November 2018).