Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/75/2016

Lakhvir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sandeep Fertilizer - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Vivek Sharma

19 Dec 2017

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No. 75 of 2016

                                           Date of institution : 08.08.2016                                  

                                         Date of decision    :19.12.2017

Lakhvir Singh aged about 49 years son of Sh. Kaka Singh , resident of Village Majri Sodhian, Tehsil and Distt. Fatehfarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

Sandeep Fertilizer, Shop No.48-49, New Grain Market Sirhind, Tehsil and Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib 140406 through its Proprietor/authorized signatory

…..Opposite Party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.                                                  

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                               

   Sh. Inder Jit, Member

Present :  Sh.Vivek Sharm,a, Adv. counsel for the complainant.                  

            Sh. D.S.Chakkal, Adv.Cl. for OP .

ORDER                                   

                                        

Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

1.         Lakhvir Singh aged about 49 years son of Sh. Kaka Singh , resident of Village Majri Sodhian, Tehsil and Distt. Fatehfarh Sahib  has filed this complaint against the Opposite Party ( hereinafter referred to as the OP) under the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.         The complainant sown  the Mungi Crops on 9.5 Acre Land, which was on lease at Village Madhopur, Tehsil and Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib. On the suggestion  and recommendation of the OP, the complainant purchased the fertilizer pesticides i.e. TKS-LAMBDA ( LAMBDA CYHALOTHRIN 5% EC) vide bill no.5328 dated 16.4.2017 and sprayed the same  on the Mungi Crop which was under the attack of Tobacco Sundi. But all the Mungi Crop was damaged  due to the spray of above said  fertilizer pesticide.  The complainant approached the OP and told  about the damage of his crop due to the said spray, and requested  to pay the damages, but the OP lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other. On the complaint, made by the complainant, the Agriculture Development Officer, Sirhind, along with the team of the technical expert visited the spot on 4.5.2016 and gave his report in favour of the Complainant wherein it was mentioned that “TKS-LAMBDA( LAMDA CYHALOTHRIN 5% EC) was sprayed on Mungi Crops by the complainant,  which was purchased from OP but the same was  not recommended by P.A.U Ludhiana. Resultantly Mungi Crops  of the complainant had  damaged  and he suffered a loss of 33 to 43 Quintals of Mungi Crops and market value of Mungi being Rs.3300/- per quintal approximately.”

3.         It is claimed by the complainant that his Mungi Crops had damaged completely and he suffered a loss of 42.75 Quintal crop, value of which comes out to be Rs1,41,075/-.  The act and conduct of the OP amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OP to pay Rs.1,41,075/- , the value of damaged Mungi crops as suffered by the complainant  and  Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for pain, agony,  and  unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.

4.                   The complaint is contested by the OP. In reply to the complaint, OP No.1 raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the complainant had purchased the insecticide in question on his own from the OP’s shop without any recommendation of the OP, hence  there was no deficiency of service on part of the OP. It is also stated that the complainant suppressed the true and material facts from  this Court, because the complainant  has to pay Rs.42,660/- as balance of the purchased fertilizer insecticides and pesticides which has not been paid by him till date to the OP. The complainant has no locus standi to file the  present complaint against the OPs.   It is also stated by the OP that he had explained to the complainant that the above said insecticide is not recommended for the said Sundi attack. In fact, the OP suggested to the complainant to use the insecticide namely  Fame of Bayar company only which is recommended for the Sundi attack on Mungi crop, but the complainant purchased the TKS LAMDA insecticide for Rs.1600/- and subsequently also purchased only 50 Ml. of the Fame insecticide due to its high price. It is  further stated by the OP that when he came to know of the damage to the Mungi Crops of the complainant, then the OP visited the fields of the complainant and found that there was a very good crop of Mungi and took the photographs of the whole area under the Mungi crop. OP stated that the inspecting  team of the agriculture department  had not given a proper report  dated 10.6.2016  due the pressure of the politicians. He further stated that  the agriculture department had taken the samples of the above said insecticides from the shop  of the OP  and  sent to Laboratory for its examination and the said Lab. examined the above said insecticides and found that  these insecticides  conforms to the standards of the agriculture department. There is no deficiency in service on its part. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OP  prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6.                   In order to prove his complaint, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW1/1, true copies of document i.e. bills dated 16.4.2016 Ex.C1, original photographs Ex.C2 to Ex.C11,  true copies of report of Agriculture Development Officer  Ex.C12, bill dated 25.4.2016 Ex.C13,  affidavit of Gurjant Singh Ex.C14, affidavit of Lakha Singh Ex.C15, affidavit of Amarbir Singh Ex.C16 , Zamabandi Ex.C17, photo state of News Items Mark-A to Mark-C and closed the evidence. In rebuttal  the OP  tendered in evidence, affidavit of Ishwar Parkash Ex. OP-1, true copies of documents i.e statement of accounts Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP2, letter dated 6.5.2016 Ex.OP3, reply dated 9.5.2011 Ex.OP4, original photographs Ex.OP5 to Ex.OP24, report dated 10.6.2016 Ex.OP25, report of Sr. Analyst Ex.OP29 to Ex.OP30, letter dated 9.4.2013 Ex.OP31, leaflet of insecticide fame Ex.OP33 and closed the evidence. 

7.                   Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that in view of the Agriculture Development Officer's report dated 06/05/2016 i.e Ex.C-12, it is established that the crop of the complainant got destroyed due to TKS-Lambda spray purchased from the OP. He pleaded that it is further established from the photographs i.e Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-11 alongwith statements  of witnesses i.e Ex.C-14 to Ex.C-16 that the crop of the complainant got destroyed due to wrong advice of the OP. Learned counsel further pleaded that the photographs relied upon by the OP are not of the fields of the complainant and the Agriculture Development Officer Report dated 10/06/2016 can also not be taken into consideration, as the same is procured one.

8.                   On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP stated that the photographs i.e Ex.OP-5 to Ex.OP-24 are the photographs of the actual  crop field of the complainant, wherein it can be seen that the crops are standing and it is also supported by the report of the Agriculture Development Officer i.e Ex.OP-25.He pleaded that the sample of the insecticide were got tested from the laboratory and the same were found to be conforming to laid down standards and the same is established from the report of Sr. Analyst Ex.OP-29 to Ex.OP-30.Learned counsel vehemently argued that the present case cannot be decided in a summary manner as there are lots of contradictions.

9.                   After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the parties and the oral arguments and written submissions, we are of the view that there is a contradiction between the Agriculture Development Officer Report dated06/05/2016 i.e Ex.C-12 and Report dated 10/06/2016 i.e Ex.C-25.Further both the parties have placed on record photographs of the crop field which are also contradictory and in order to prove which ones are original, it requires voluminous evidence, which is not possible in a summary manner. The report of the Sr.Analyst i.e Ex.OP-29 & Ex.OP-30 also proves that the insecticide were found to be conforming to its laid down standards.

10.                 Accordingly, in view of aforesaid discussion, we feel the present complaint cannot be decided in a summary manner, as in order to prove the truth of the case, it will require voluminous evidence which includes oral and cross examination etc.  We may, in this case, refer to a decision of three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of  Synco Industries v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and Ors. I (2002) CPJ 16 (SC) , in which Hon’ble Supreme Court observed where complicated questions of law and facts are involved, Forum under the Consumer Protection Act may not be a proper Forum to dispose of such a case in summary fashion. We feel in the present case also, complicated questions of facts are involved which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Forum. Thus, we are unable to decide the case in hand on merits. Hence  the complainant is granted  liberty to approach the appropriate  Court of law and may be entitled to the benefit of the observations of the Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute II(1995) CPJ 1 (SC) : 1995 3 SCC 583 for the purpose of exclusion of time spent before this Forum. The present complaint is disposed of with the aforementioned observation. In case, the parties require any requisite document, the same be supplied. Parties to bear the cost. 

11.                    The arguments on the complaint were heard on 08.12.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 19.12.2017

(A.P.S.Rajput)

President

 

(Inder Jit)         

    Member