Case No. 179/2023   

IN THE MATTER OF

Gyanedra   S/o Jeet Pal Singh age about 65 years R/o village Ram Nagar Post office Ogipur Distict Aligarh

                                                         V/s

Ved Prakash Urf Prince S/o Jaipal Singh age about 40 years R/o Village Ogipur Post office Ogipur Tehsil Ghawana District Aligarh                                                                                     

CORAM

 Present:                                   

1. Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President
2. Shri Alok Upadhayay, Member
3. Smt. Purnima Singh Rajpoot,Member

PRONOUNCED by Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President

JUDGMENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant before this commission for  the following reliefs-

1. The Op be directed to indemnify the complainant for the amount Rs.7500 with interest.
2.  The Op be directed to pay compensation at Rs.5000 and Litigation expenses Rs2500.

2. The Complainant has stated that he is a poor farmer. He had sown the pearl millet (Bajra) crop in the current crop year. There was a grassy weed in the field and the post emergent weed which were causing damage to the crop. He was advised to spray the pesticide to remove the weed. Complainant purchased a bottle of 200ml pesticide for Rs.300 to remove the weed from the shop of the op and applied the pesticide as per guidance of the OP. Complainant was advised to purchase Herbicide known as Wilgold and he was guided by the op to spray the herbicide mixing with the water. After using the herbicide as per direction of the op the entire crop stood ruined. Complainant suffered a loss Rs.7500 for the excepted three Quintals yield. Op is not qualified person to sell the pesticide. As the herbicide Wilgold was meant for paddy crop and not for Bajra Crop. Complainant was not informed about the time of its use as to whether it was to be used as pre-emergent weed or post-emergent weed. Complainant has suffered not only financial loss but also suffered physical and mental pains.             
3. Op stated in in WS that the alleged pesticides 200 ml is sufficient for 10 bigha crop whereas 12 bigha crop has been alleged to have been ruined. Complainant has made a plan to extort the money on account of enmity. Complainant has never purchased the pesticide from the shop of the OP.
4.  Complainant has filed his affidavit and papers in support of his pleadings. Op has also filed affidavit in support of his pleadings.
5. We have perused the material available on record and heard the parties counsel.
6. The first question of consideration before us is whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
7. Complainant has deposed to have purchased the pesticide Wilgold from the shop of the op who has not denied to run the shop. Op has denied not to sell the pesticide to the complainant but complainant has filed the photographs of the shop and the op has not denied the connection of the photographs with his shop. Further, the WS filed by the OP is not admissible on account of service of notice on the op on 20.10.2023 whereas the WS was field on 7.2.2024 beyond 45 days of effecting service of notice to file WS. Thus the complainant’s case is proved against the op and the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed.
8. The question formulated above is decided in favor of the complainant.
9. We hereby direct the op to indemnify the complainant for the amount Rs.7500 with pendente lite and future interest @12% per annum and to pay Rs.5000 as compensation for harassment with litigation expenses Rs.2500.
10.  Op shall comply with the directions within 45 days failing which Ops shall be prosecuted for non-compliance in accordance with section 72 of the Act for awarding punishment against him.
11. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties as per rule as mandated by Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
12. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.