KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 533/2018

JUDGMENT DATED: 24.11.2022

(Against the Order in C.C. 37/2017 of CDRF, Malappuram)

PRESENT:

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH                                                       : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.RANJIT. R                                                                   : MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

Rasheed @ Bapputty, S/o Moideen, Vilakkumadathil House, Karuvambram P.O., Manjeri, Malappuram.

(Party in person)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. P. Rajagopal, Fact Dealer, Nilambur Road, Manjeri, Malappuram.

(By Adv. Abdul Shukkur Arakkal)

2. Jayakrishna Pesticides Pvt. Ltd., S.N. No. 29/9-B, Vallakkalpatti, Opposite Arabic College, Selam, Tamil Nadu-636 012.

(By Advs. Harikumar Menon & R. Suja Madhav)

JUDGMENT

SRI. RANJIT. R : MEMBER

Aggrieved by the dismissal of his complaint C.C. No. 37/2017 on 30.06.2018 by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malappuram, in short the District Forum, the complainant has come up in appeal. 

2.  The parties are referred to herein in accordance with their status in the complaint. 

3.  The brief facts of the case are as follows:  The complainant purchased 6 tins of 5 litres each herbicide from the 1^st opposite party worth Rs. 10,800/-.  The 1^st opposite party has assured that within 15 days the weeds would be destroyed.  The complainant used the herbicide to destroy the weeds in an area of 15 acres of land belonging to Plantation Corporation of Kerala.  For sprinkling the herbicide 12 workers were employed for 6 days.  But even after waiting for 15 days the weeds were not destroyed as assured by the opposite parties.  The herbicide was manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party.  Since the weeds were not destroyed even after 15 days the Plantation Corporation of Kerala did not make any payment as per the tender.  Hence the complainant was compelled to purchase another herbicide named ‘Round up’.  After using the herbicide ‘Round up’, all the weeds were destroyed.  For sprinkling the second herbicide complainant had to employ 12 workers for 6 days.  Rs. 800/- was paid as wages to each person.  Since the weeds could not be destroyed using the herbicide of the opposite parties the complainant sustained heavy loss to a tune of Rs. 1,59,828/-.  Therefore the complainant filed the complaint seeking relief of Rs. 1,59,828/- and Rs. 10,800/- as value of the herbicide against the opposite parties alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency of service.  He had also claimed compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for mental agony. 

4.  The 1^st opposite party filed version admitting that the complainant has purchased herbicide from them which was manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant was well aware of the details of the herbicide and there was no occasion for the 1^st opposite party to disclose the quality of the said herbicide.  Each container contained clear instruction about the method of usage of the product.  At the time of purchasing the herbicide the complainant did not pay the entire amount.  With the labour of two persons the herbicide can be used/applied in an area of one acre and thus the statement of the complainant that the labour of 12 persons were used by him is an exaggerated version.  If the herbicide is used violating the instructions stated by the manufacturer, the 2^nd opposite party, no required result will be obtained.  They have denied the statement that the complainant had used the herbicide in an area of 15 acres of land in the property of Plantation Corporation of Kerala as per the tender.  He had filed the complaint only since the 1^st opposite party made repeated requests for payment of the balance amount.  Further, after purchasing the article from the 1^st opposite party the complainant had never made any complaint regarding the quality of the herbicide at any point of time.  There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part.  Hence they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.  The 2^nd opposite party has filed their version with the similar contentions.

6.  Both parties filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination.  Complainant’s documents were marked as Exts. A1 to A3.  Exts. B1 to B5 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.  The District Forum on the basis of the evidence let in by the parties and hearing both parties found that the complainant failed to prove that the product of the opposite parties was ineffective in destroying the weeds.  Since the complainant did not prove his case, the complaint was dismissed. 

7.  The complainant who was present in person contended that Exts. A1 and A2 prove that he had purchased 6 tins of 5 litres of herbicide from the 1^st opposite party, manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party and the total cost of the product comes to Rs. 10,800/-.  The complainant used the herbicide to destroy the weeds in 15 acres of land belonging to the Plantation Corporation of Kerala as per Ext. A2 tender notice.  Since the weeds were not destroyed even after using it for 15 days the Plantation Corporation of Kerala refused to pay the amount as per the tender to the complainant.  The appellant had to purchase another herbicide named ‘Round up’.  Only after using that product the weeds were destroyed.  Ext. A3 photographs would clearly show that the herbicide manufactured and sold by the opposite parties were defective and was ineffective in destroying the weeds, whereas the other herbicide ‘Round up’ was very effective.  These photographs were not considered by the District Forum in the proper perspective.  The District Forum gave much importance to the irrelevant and inadmissible documents produced by the opposite parties.  The District Forum also gave much importance to the non-production of purchase bill showing the purchase of the second herbicide ‘Round up’.  The non-production of the bill of the herbicide ‘Round up’ is immaterial since Ext. A3 photographs would clearly show that the herbicide manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party and sold by the 1^st opposite party was ineffective in destroying weeds.  He thus prayed for allowing the complaint. 

8.  The learned counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2 would admit that the complainant had purchased 6 bottles of herbicide manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party and sold by the 1^st opposite party for an amount of Rs. 10,800/-.  They would contend that the herbicide is to be used as per the instructions contained in the label of the bottle.  If it is not used as per the instructions the herbicide will not give the required result.  Further, they would contend that the mere assertion of the complainant that he used the herbicide to destroy weeds and no result was obtained is not sufficient to establish the claim of the complainant.  If no result is obtained as alleged by the complainant, he should have proved it by the evidence of an expert.  No such action was adopted by the complainant.  The complainant has also failed to produce the purchase bill to prove that he has actually purchased another herbicide ‘Round up’ and that he could destroy the entire weeds by using that herbicide.  Evidence is lacking to prove the purchase of the herbicide ‘Round up’.  The non-production of the bill for the purchase of herbicide ‘Round up’ in spite of specific contention raised by opposite parties on that aspect, makes the claim of the complainant doubtful.  The mere production of photographs does not mean that it relates to the use of herbicide of the opposite parties.  The complainant did not give sufficient data to prove that the two sets of photographs were taken after the use of the product of the opposite parties and the other three photographs were taken after the use of the herbicide ‘Round up’.  The complainant has also failed to produce any proof to show that he has sustained any loss on account of using the herbicide produced by the 2^nd opposite party and sold by the 1^st opposite party. 

9.  We have considered the contentions put forward by both parties and perused the records.  The specific contention of the complainant is that the herbicide of the opposite parties did not destroy the weeds in the 15 acres of land of the Plantation Corporation of Kerala even though he had used it as per the instructions.  Since the weeds were not destroyed even after 15 days of the use the Plantation Corporation of Kerala refused to pay the amount of the complainant as per the tender.  Hence the complainant had to purchase another herbicide ‘Round up’ and only after using it the entire weeds were destroyed.  To prove his case the complainant produced Exts. A1 to A3.  These documents did not prove that the herbicide of the opposite parties were ineffective in destroying the weeds. Exts. A1 and A2 would only prove that he has purchased the herbicide from the 1^st opposite party and it was used to be sprinkled at 15 acres of land belonging to the Plantation Corporation of Kerala. The only document relied on by the complainant to prove that the herbicide of the opposite party was ineffective in destroying the weeds are Ext. A3 photographs (5 Nos.) Two sets of photographs are produced to prove that the weeds could not be destroyed even after using the herbicide purchased from the 1^st opposite party and the other three sets of photographs to prove that after using another herbicide named ‘Round up’ the weeds could be destroyed completely.  We have perused the photographs.  It will only prove that only a few weeds were destroyed as per the first set of photographs and almost all the weeds were destroyed as per the second set of photographs.  It does not show that the herbicide sold by the 1^st opposite party is not effective in destroying the weeds.  The complainant had not produced documents such as the bills or invoice to show that he actually bought another herbicide ‘Round up’.  From the above facts no one can say looking at the photographs, that the herbicide sold by the 1^st opposite party was ineffective and that the herbicide named ‘Round up’ could destroy the weeds.  The complainant did not give sufficient data to prove that the first two sets of photographs were taken after the use of the product of the opposite parties and other three sets of photographs were taken after the use of the herbicide ‘Round up’.  Moreover the complainant did not adduce any evidence either oral or documentary to show that due to the use of opposite parties’ herbicide he could not destroy the weeds to the satisfaction and that due to the above reason the Plantation Corporation of Kerala did not pay any amount towards his work and thereby he sustained loss.  Further as pointed out by the learned counsel for the 2^nd opposite party the herbicide will be of no use if it was used when there was heavy rain or that it was not used as per the instruction.  Moreover the 2^nd opposite party has produced Ext. B4 series Quality Performance Certificates dated 01.03.2012, 07.02.2013, 12.03.2014, 24.08.2016 and 18.01.2017 issued by the Director of Agriculture, Chennai which shows that the performance of the herbicide manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party in general was good and satisfactory.  The burden of proof is on the complainant to prove his case.  From the above stated circumstances, it is found that the complainant failed to prove his case.  The District Forum therefore has rightly found that the complainant failed to prove that the product of the opposite parties was defective and failed to give required result and that the complainant sustained heavy loss on that account.

10.  We find that the District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint for want of evidence.  We find no grounds to interfere with the reasoned order of the District Forum.  The order of the District Forum is therefore confirmed. 

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.   

T.S.P. MOOSATH   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

RANJIT. R                : MEMBER

RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb