BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.175/16.
Date of instt.: 13.06.2016.
Date of Decision: 28.08.2017.
Krishan S/o Sh. Jugga Ram, caste Jaat, r/o Bidhan Patti, Balu, Tehsil Kalayat, District Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- M/s. Agri Business Centre, c/o Shop No.40, New Grain Market, Kaithal through its authorized agent.
1(a)(i) UPL Ltd., 3-11 GIDC Vapi, Gujarat through its authorized Manager/Partner.
1(a)(ii). M/s. Sahil Enterprises, near Union Bank of India, Chandana Road, Kaithal through its authorized Partner/Manager.
1(b)(i) Modesto Crop Protection Limited, Modesto Complex, Plot No.2, Gali No.1, near Cooler Factory, Gaushala Road, Karnal through its authorized Manager/Partner.
1(b)(ii) Ramesh & Co., Opp. Union Bank Road, Kaithal through its authorized Partner/Manager.
- Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, District Kaithal.
- Agriculture Development Officer, Kalayat, District Kaithal.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. S.K.Gupta, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Kabir Dhall, Advocate for the opposite parties No.1, 1(b)(i), 1(b)(ii) and 1(a)(ii).
Sh. Dinesh Dhull, Adv. for Ops No.2 & 3.
Sh. Gurdev Singh, Adv. for Op No.1(a)(i)
(Though Op No.1(a)(i) exparte).
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased the 8 packets of “Leedar” medicine brand name TKS-Sulmet and 10 packets of ‘Topic” medicine having brand name FLAG from the Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.5200/- vide invoice No.3874 dt. 01.01.2016. It is alleged that the complainant used the above-said pesticides for rabi crops standing on 9 acres of the land which proved to be totally ineffective and useless against the pests and weeds due to which the total crop was damaged. It is further alleged that the complainant moved an application dt. 29.01.2016 to the Agriculture Officer, Kaithal. It is further alleged that the team of agriculture officer visited the premises of complainant and as per their report, 40-45% of crop of complainant was damaged due to use of above-said defective pesticides sold by the Op No.1. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties No.1, 1(a)(ii), 1(b)(i), 1(b)(ii), 2 & 3 appeared before this forum, whereas Op No.1(a)(i) did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 30.01.2017. On 27.02.2017, ld. counsel for the Op No.1(a)(i) appeared and moved an application for join the proceedings at the stage of filing reply and the said application was allowed vide order dt.27.02.2017 of this forum. Ops No.1 to 3, 1(a)(i) and 1(b)(i) filed and ld. counsel for the Ops No.1(a)(ii) and 1(b)(ii) made statement to the effect that the reply filed on behalf of Op No.1 may also be read on behalf of Ops No.1(a)(ii) and 1(b)(ii). Op No.1 filed the reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties; that the compliance of Section 13(1)(c) of C.P.Act, 1986 has not been complied with; that the complainant has purchased the weedicide in question for commercial activity, as such, the matter is outside the jurisdiction of this forum; that the germination and growth of yield of the crop depends on various factors like the time of sowing, type of soil, practices adopted for sowing, the quality and the time and manner of application of insecticides and pesticides. Moreover, the alleged loss (though denied) can be for numerous reasons not attributed to the answering Op viz. fault of unskilled labour or grower, adverse weather circumstances, excessive or less use of the weedicide, insecticide and pesticides. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Ops No.2 & 3 filed the joint reply stating therein that the complainant moved an application before the Deputy Director Agri. Kaithal on 25.04.2016 and on the application of complainant, DDA Kaithal constituted a committee to inspect the wheat crops of the complainant on 05.02.2016. It is further stated that according to the spot inspection, the complainant has suffered a loss of yield to the extent of 40/45% and the report was prepared at the spot in the presence of complainant, Op No.4 and other persons were present at the spot. The other contents of complaint are also denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. The Ops No.1(a)(i) and Op No.1(b)(i) also filed the replies separately on the same line as followed by other Ops and so, prayed for dismissed of complaint.
5. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 and Mark-CA & Mark-CB and closed evidence on 05.05.2017. On the other hand, the Ops No.1, 1(b)(i), 1(b)(ii) and 1(a)(ii) tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Mark-RA to Mark-RI and closed evidence on 07.07.2017. The Op No.1(a)(i) tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.RW1/8 and document Ex.R1 and closed evidence on 27.07.2017. The Ops No.2 & 3 did not tender any evidence despite availing several opportunities, so, the evidence of Ops No.2 & 3 was closed vide order dt. 27.07.2017 of this forum.
6. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
7. From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is not disputed that the complainant purchased the 8 packets of “Leedar” medicine brand name TKS-Sulmet and 10 packets of ‘Topic” medicine having brand name FLAG from the Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.5200/- vide invoice No.3874 dt. 01.01.2016. The grievance of the complainant is that he used the above-said pesticides for rabi crops standing on 9 acres of the land which proved to be totally ineffective and useless against the pests and weeds due to which the he suffered a loss about 40-45%. The complainant has also placed on file inspection report, Ex.C1 of the Agriculture Department. Ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted a catena of authorities i.e. computerized copy of decisions bearing Revision petition No.1161 of 2001 decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 03.08.2011 titled as N.S.C. Ltd. Vs. Guruswammy & another; first appeal No.901 of 2009 date of decision 11.09.2012 titled as Haryana Agro Industries Corporation of India Vs. Dhira and others (Haryana State Commission); revision petition No.2891-2991 of 2014, date of decision: 30.03.2015 titled as Karnataka Agro Seeds Vs. Samadhan Sukhdeo Wagh and others (NC) and civil appeal No.2253 of 1999, date of decision: 06.05.2014 titled as H.N.Shankara Shastry Vs. The Asstt. Director of Agriculture, Karnal (SC). On the other hand, the Ops vehemently contended that they have approved the sample from the laboratory and after testing the sample of pesticides from the laboratory, they have sent the same to the market for the sale of the pesticides. It is pertinent to mention here that the committee constituted by the Agriculture Department has also taken the samples of the weedicides from the dealer bearing same batch number for testing from the laboratory. The Ops have placed on file report Mark-RA of Senior Analyst, Quality Control Laboratory (Pesticides), Karnal which was sent to the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Kaithal vide No.46/SA(P) dt. 19.02.2016 in reference to his letter No.613 dt. 11.02.2016 by the laboratory. In the said report, the samples were found “permissible” which means that the same were upto the mark. The Ops have also placed on file certificate of analysis, Ex.R1 regarding the product TKS-SULMET (Sulfosulfuron 75%+Metsulfuron methy 15%WG) bearing batch No.IMJTKS8010, manufacturing date 07.09.2015 and expiry date 06.09.2017. According to the said report, the “material complies with the requirements”. The complainant has purchased the pesticides/weedicides of the same batch number as mentioned in the above test report, Ex.R1 as the same are mentioned in the complaint by the complainant. It is necessary to mention here that the same batch number is also mentioned in the inspection report, Ex.C1. No doubt, the Ops have placed on the file only the report of one weedicide but the committee of Agriculture Department has taken the samples of both the weedicides which were found upto the mark. So, in view of above-said lab report, Mark-RA and certificate, Ex.R1, the report of inspection committee, Ex.C1 is not helpful to the complainant. The authorities submitted by ld. counsel for the complainant are not applicable to the facts of present case. In these circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to prove on the file that the weedicides/pesticides sold to him by the Ops were of sub-standard quality. Hence, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops.
8. Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and we hereby dismiss the same. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.28.08.2017.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
