Haryana

Kaithal

48/20

Parveen Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Mange Ram Ram Niwas - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Sanjeev Aggarwal

31 Aug 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.48/2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 23.01.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:31.08.2022.

Parveen Kumar aged 38 years son of Sh. Ishwar, resident of Village Bhaini Majra, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. M/s. Mange Ram Ram Niwas, Super Market, Kaithal, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal through its owner/prop./partners.
2. Bayer Crop Science AG, Germany, Imported by Bayer Crop Science Limited Factory Village Nimbua.  Post Office Mubarakpur, Tehsil Derabassi, Distt. S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) Punjab-140201 through its authorized person/persons.

….Respondents.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Sanjeev Aggarwal, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. R.D.Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.No.1.

                Respondent No.2 exparte.

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

        Parveen Kumar-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.

                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant used to engage in agriculture profession and he took six acre land situated at Patti Kayseth Seth, Kaithal according to Jamabandi for the year 2015-16 on lease from his owner Sh. Paras Ram, resident of Kaithal at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per acre for the year April, 2019 to April, 2020 and he sown the wheat crops in the above-said six acre land.  It is alleged that the complainant purchased 14 packets of pesticides of ATLANTIS (Code No.3808) from the respondent No.1 in the total sum of Rs.8120/- (i.e. Rs.580/- per packet) vide bill No.2896 dt. 14.12.2019 for the control of grassy weeds and broad leaf weeds from the wheat crops.  The complainant sprayed the above-said pesticides in the wheat crops but the above-said pesticides did not control the grassy weeds and broad leaf weeds from the wheat crops, rather due to spray of the above-said pesticides damaged the plants of the wheat crops.  Thereafter, in the month of January, 2020 the complainant moved an application to District Agriculture Plant Protection Officer, Kaithal and the officials of the above-said department inspected the wheat crops sown by the complainant in his six acres land and it was found that 60% to 65% of the wheat crop plants were damaged.  Due to the above-said 60% to 65% damage of plants, the complainant has suffered loss of Rs.35,000/- per acre (i.e. total Rs.2,10,000/-).  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

2.       Upon notice, the respondent No.1 appeared before this Commission, whereas respondent No.2 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 02.03.2020 of this commission. Respondent No.1 contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections that the complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint which cannot be decided in the summary trail and Civil Court is the best platform; that the complainant is not falling under the definition of consumer and as such, the present complaint is not maintainable before this commission; that the complainant is not a farmer neither the complainant is the owner of any agricultural land nor the complainant ever took any agricultural land on lease rather the complainant purchased the pesticide manufactured by respondent No.2 from respondent No.1 for commercial purposes; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1 to Annexure-C9 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.             On the other hand, the respondent No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R3 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.             Sh. Sanjeev Aggarwal, Adv. for the complainant has stated that the complainant had purchased 14 packets of pesticides of ATLANTIS (Code No.3808) from the respondent No.1 in the total sum of Rs.8120/- (i.e. Rs.580/- per packet) vide bill No.2896 dt. 14.12.2019 for the control of grassy weeds and broad leaf weeds from the wheat crops.  It has been argued that the complainant sprayed the above-said pesticides in the wheat crops but the above-said pesticides did not control the grassy weeds and broad leaf weeds from the wheat crops, rather due to spray of the above-said pesticides damaged the plants of the wheat crops.  It has been further argued that on his application to District Agriculture Plant Protection Officer, Kaithal in the month of January, 2020 the team visited the fields of complainant on 14.01.2020 and inspected the wheat sown by the complainant in his six acre land and it was found that 60% to 65% of the wheat crop plants were damaged and in this regard, the Assistant Plant Protection Officer, Kaithal submitted his report.  Hence, due to the aforesaid pesticides, the complainant suffered loss of Rs.35,000/- per acre.  The complainant has claimed the damages as-well-as the amount of Rs.8120/- paid for pesticides.  He has placed reliance on the authorities laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M.Madhusudhan Reddy & another 2012(1) CPJ 1; Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Ankur Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ondabrolu Hasen Rao & others, 2008(3) CLT 143; Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Ankur Seeds P. Ltd. Vs. Kondabrolu Hasen Rao & others 2008(3) CLT and Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. Nalia Narsimha Rao 2990(2) CPJ 24.  

7.             On the other hand, Sh. R.D.Sharma, Adv. for the respondent No.1 has taken the objection that the same pesticide was not sent to laboratory for chemical analysis.  Rebutting his arguments, Sh. Sanjeev Aggarwal, Adv. for the complainant has stated that the pesticide available with the complainant was poured into the crops while respondent-Mange Ram has stated that all those packets of pesticides were got finished in his shop, being purchased by the farmers.  Annexure-C4 is the report of Asstt. Plant Protection Officer, Kaithal, wherein it has been stated that on 14.01.2020, the team of Agriculture Plant Protection Officer, Kaithal visited 6 acre land of complainant-Parveen Kumar son of Ishwar Singh, r/o Village Bhaini Majra and found that 60-65% wheat crop was infected.  Thereafter, the team of Agriculture Plant Protection Officer, Kaithal inspected the stock register of seller of pesticide on 13.01.2020 and this stock register of the pesticide was found to be Nil on that date.  Hence, sample of the pesticide could not be taken by the team of Agriculture Plant Protection Officer, Kaithal.

8.             Sh. R.D.Sharma, Adv. for the respondent No.1 has placed reliance upon the authorities laid down by Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Mohinder Pal Vs. Kisan Pesticides & another 2017(3) CPJ 427; Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Gujarat Insecticides Ltd. Vs. Ram Niwas 2013(4) CPJ 256; Hon’ble Punjab State Commission in case titled as Mithan Lal Vs. M/s. Ramditta Mal Des Raj bearing first appeal No.1253 of 2015 decided on 27.12.2016 and Hon’ble Punjab State Commission in case titled as Hardev Singh Vs. Ram Singh and others 2010(1) CPJ 415.  The said authorities have been duly perused and considered by us and the same are applicable to the facts of instant case.  Respondent No.1 has not produced any evidence on the point that some other farmers have also used the same pesticide and their crops have not been damaged.  Neither any laboratory report regarding testing of the aforesaid pesticide has been produced by respondent No.1.  While the report of pesticide expert Annexure-C4 which has been produced by the complainant has stated that the team of Agriculture Plant Protection Officer, Kaithal had visited the spot pertaining to the complainant and has stated that 60-65% wheat crop was found to be infected.  Hence, it is amply proved on file that 60-65% of the wheat crop belonging to Parveen Kumar-complainant has been infected by the pesticides of “ATLANTIS” which has been used by Parveen Kumar-complainant, who had sprinkled 14 packets of pesticides of Atlantis in his wheat crop.  Complainant has stated that there is production of 20 quintal per acre.  The price of wheat per quintal is approximately Rs.1900/- which becomes Rs.38,000/- (Rs.1900/-x20 qunital) per acre.  Hence, in 6 acre land wheat crop was standing, 60-65% of the crop was infected/damaged by the pesticide of “ATLANTIS”.  So, on 1 acre, the damage will be Rs.38,000/-x60%=Rs.22,800/- per acre.  Hence, on 6 acre, the damage will be Rs.22,800/-x6 acre=Rs.1,36,800/- shall be the compensation for damages of crop which shall be paid by both the respondents jointly and severally to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization within 45 from today.   

9.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted accordingly with cost.  The cost is assessed as Rs.11,000/- which will be paid by the respondents to the complainant.      

10.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:31.08.2022.

  

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.