ORDER

(Passed on 04 /12/2019)

PER SHRI.ATUL D.ALSI, PRESIDENT.

              The complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 alleging sale of substandard and poor quality mulching film by the Opposite Party and thereby claiming compensation of Rs.9,03,000/- towards cost of mulching film and the loss of crop sustained due to defective mulching film, alongwith compensation of Rs.20,000/- for physical and mental agony and further Rs.10,000/- towards cost of proceeding.

2.       The facts giving rise to this petition, in short, are that the complainant owns an agricultural land bearing Survey No.135 at Mouza Vitthalwada admeasuring 10.32 H.R.out of which he cultivates Chili crop in 5 acres which is duly irrigated.  For increasing the yield by adopting progressive farming techniques, he purchased four bundles of mulching film from the OP for Rs.83,320/- as per the bills filed at Exh.2.  He layed mulching film in the field as per the guidelines, but due to its inferior quality, the mulching film was torn and damaged within a short span thereby causing loss of crop in 50% field area.  The complainant informed the OP about the same and the OP conducted inspection of his field and assured to provide new mulching film, but lateron avoided to do so. Hence the complainant issued notice to the OP through his Advocate Mr.Navghare on 21/1/2016 but the OP failed to comply the notice. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint.

3.       The complaint is admitted and notice was served on the OP. The OP appeared before the Forum and filed its reply and thereby denied allegations as against it.  The OP submitted that the complainant has not produced any evidence to prove that the mulching film provided to him by the OP was of substandard quality and were torn within 15 to 30 days after they were layed in the field.  The complainant has not even filed expert evidence to prove his allegations. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.

4.       Counsel for the complainant argued that the mulching film sold to him by the OP was of substandard quality and were torn within 15 to 30 days after they were layed in the field which caused loss of crop to the complainant.  The complainant has filed photographs of the torn and damaged mulching films on record.  He had issued notice to the OP calling upon him to make good the loss sustained due to substandard mulching films, however, the OP did not comply.  The OP has supplied poor quality mulching films due to which the complainant suffered loss of yield and hence the petition may be allowed as prayed. 

5.         Counsel for the OPs argued that the complainant has not filed any evidence to show that he sown good quality seeds and has followed the proper cropping procedures. The mulching films were purchased by the complainant in the month of July whereas they were utilized by him after a long period. Further, there is nothing to prove that proper irrigation facility was there and that the crop was taken under the instructions of an expert. Solid wastes in the field were not removed. These are some of the factors which might have resulted into damage to the mulching films.  However, in absence of expert opinion about the quality of mulching film, no aspersions can be fastened to the quality of mulching film supplied by the OP. Hence the complaint deserves to be dismissed with cost.

6.       We have gone through the complaint, written versions filed by OP, affidavit, documents and WNA filed by the parties. We have also heard the oral arguments advanced by parties.

                    Points                                                                                     Finding

1. Whether the complainant is a Consumer ?                                      Yes

2.  Whether  the allegation of supply of defective goods i.e.

      substandard mulching   Film is proved.?                                            No

3.  What order ?                                                                  As per final order..

As to issue No.1

7.      The complainant has filed receipts of purchase of mulching film from the O.P. Even the OP has admitted to have sold mulching film to the complainant and as such, there is no dispute about status of the complainant as Consumer. Hence the issue is decided accordingly.

As to issue No.2

8.        The present dispute is in respect of poor quality of mulching film which was purchased by the complainant for increasing chilly crop yield. However, the complainant failed to file any cogent evidence to show that he had sown good quality seeds and had followed proper cropping procedures with adequate irrigation facility. There is no evidence about utilization of mulching films immediately after their purchase so also there is no evidence to prove that the crop was taken under the instructions of an expert. There is no evidence about poor quality of mulching films nor there is evidence about alleged loss of crop due to poor quality mulching films. Only the photographs of the field which are filed on record would not serve the cause In absence of corroborative evidence.  Hence the complaint is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Hence the order..

Final order

1. The Complaint is dismissed.

2. No order as to costs.

3. Copy of the order be furnished to both the parties free of cost.

(Smt.Kalpana Jangade (Kute)  (Smt.Kirti Vaidya (Gadgil)     (Shri.Atul D.Alsi)

               Member                                 Member                                    President