Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 99
Instituted on : 05.03.2018.
Decided on : 19.09.2023.
Sh.Randhir age 38 years, s/o Khushi Ram, r/o VPO Khidwali, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- The Manager, HPM Chemical & Fertiliers Ltd., #209, 210 Anupam Bhawan Azadpur, Commercial Complex, Azadpur, Delhi-110033.
- The Manager, Khurana Agriculture Store, Old Sabji Mandi Chowk, Hissar Road, Rohtak-124001.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.N.S.Dalal, Advocate for complainant.
Opposite party No.1 in person.
Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for the opposite party No.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he had purchased the spray namely “HPM Sulfosulfuron 75% W.G” from the opposite party for the purpose of securing the wheat crops from weeds in the field. The complainant used the alleged spray in field but after 3 to 4 days of spray, wheat crops were completely destroyed. Complainant visited the shop of respondents many times regarding above said matter but the respondents completely failed to give any satisfactory reply. Due to use of alleged spray, the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.35000/-. Complainant sent a legal notice to the respondents by way of his counsel but reply to the legal notice is completely vague. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay an amount of Rs.35000/- as compensation on account of loss of crops and Rs.300/- for pesticide brand namely Target and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that complainant himself failed to state that he duly followed the direction as given in the product itself while before or during the usage of the product on the crops in the field. Hence, the present complaint in the absence of the statement of factum by the complainant about the proper use of the product of the answering respondent no.1 does not give any rise to the cause of action qua the answering respondent no.1. In fact, the complainant did not follow the direction for use, however has attempted to cover up his mistakes in application of product and has approached this forum to adopt an arm-twisting approach towards the respondent which is absolutely an unreasonable and unjust act. No scientific report of laboratory has been placed on record by the complainant. Hence it is not proved that there is any deficiency in the product of the respondent no.1. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3 Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that the complainant has not given any date, month and year of the purchase of Spray. As per the copy of the Invoice No. 336, the complainant has purchased 1 unit namely Target bearing HSN Code 3808 Batch No. S-192 from the answering respondent on 28.12.2017. Complainant has also not given any date of use of the spray and the date on which the alleged crop was found destroyed. Hence it is an outcome of afterthought of the complainant with a view to cover up the mistake of the complainant himself while using the alleged spray on the wheat crop. The user of the Sulfosulfuron 75% W.G. has to follow the instructions/directions given in the directons for use. There is no where any submission on the part of the complainant that he used to the spray as per the directions and instruction mentioned on the leaflet/label for use of the spray. No one can be allowed to take benefit of his/her own wrong act. Moreover the answering respondent is only a vendor and not a manufacturer. Though none of the respondents are liable to compensate the complainant as alleged in the complaint hence otherwise also there is no liability of the answering respondent to compensate the complainant in any manner. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party no.2 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed his evidence on dated 15.05.2019. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R1/1 to Ex.R1/4 and closed his evidence on 15.01.2020. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A and closed his evidence on 16.10.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present complaint, as per the bill Ex.C1, the complainant has purchased one unit of Target HSN 3808 weedicide spray from the opposite party No.1 on dated 28.12.2017 and sprayed the same in his agriculture land. But due to alleged spray, the crops of the complainant get destroyed. He immediately approached to the respondents but no action was taken by the respondents. Thereafter a legal notice Ex.C2 has been served by the complainant on 17.01.2018 and the reply has been given by the opposite party No.1 vide reply Ex.C3 dated 27.01.2018. Complainant has also placed on record photographs of field Ex.C6. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. After receiving the legal notice, the respondent no.1 has not taken any step to inspect the field of the complainant and to verify the facts. Respondent has not constituted any team to investigate the matter. In fact the damages were came into their notice at early stage but despite that no action was taken by the opposite parties to verify the damages. On the other hand, plea taken by the opposite parties that complainant might have ignored the instructions for use of the pesticides under reference. But the same is based on surmises and conjectures and is not proved by any authentic evidence. Hence it is proved that the spray sold by the opposite party No.2 to the complainant was of poor quality, due to which complainant suffered loss of crop in 1 acres of land. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite party No.1 being manufacturer is liable to compensate the complainant. As per this complaint, complainant has sought relief of Rs.35000/- on account of loss suffered by him.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party no.1 to pay Rs.35000/-(Rupees thirty fivethousand only) towards loss of crops alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.05.03.2018 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.6000/-(Rupees six thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and as well as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
19.09.2023.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member.
