Haryana

StateCommission

A/633/2017

MANPHOOL - Complainant(s)

Versus

YADAV BEEJ BHANDAR - Opp.Party(s)

AJIT SIHAG

13 Oct 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

  Date of Institution:23.05.2017

                Date of final hearing:13.10.2023

                                                Date of pronouncement: 16.10.2023

 

First Appeal No.633 of 2017

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

Manphool son of Shri Mange Ram, R/o  Village Lalpura, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar.

.….Appellant.

Through Counsel Shri Ajit Sihag, Advocate

Versus

 

1. M/s Yadav Beej Bhandar, 22, S.D. College, Bhagat Singh Road, Hansi, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar through its proprietor/authorized person.

….Respondent No.1

Through counsel Shri Rose Gupta, Advocate

 

2.    Hindustan Polarizing Mills, Industrial Growth Centre, Samba, Jammu and Kashmir.

        Agrico Organics Limited, B=3/6, Mahesh Nagr, S.V. Road, Gurgaon (West) Mumbai-400062 and Vijay Remidics Limited, Village Bhuranwali, Baddi Road, Barodiwala, District Solan (H.P.).

….Respondent No.2

Through counsel Shri Benu Gunjan Jha, Advocate

 

 

CORAM:   S.C. Kaushik, Member.

 

Present:-    Shri Ajit Sihag, counsel for the appellant.

                   Shri Rose Gupta, Advocate alongwith Ms. Garima Modi, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.1.

                   None for respondent No.2.

 

O R D E R

S. C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER:

 

                   Delay of 25 days in filing of the present appeal is hereby condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.

2.                Present appeal is preferred against the order dated 28.02.2017 in Consumer Complaint No.110 of 2013, passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (now ‘learned District Commission’), vide which complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.

3.                Brief facts of the complaint filed before learned District Commission are that complainant purchased cotton seeds from opposite party No.1 (“OP No.1”) and had sown the same in his 5 acres of agriculture land situated at village Lalpura, Tehsil-Hansi, District Hisar. On recommendation of OP No.1, complainant also purchased pesticides of various companies from OP No.1. It was alleged that as per the instructions OP No.1, complainant sprayed the said pesticides in his fields upon his cotton crop in the same manner and ratio in which OP No.1 directed him to do so, but after some months 75 to 80% of cotton crop was ruined and plant of cotton crop was almost destroyed. Thereafter, complainant immediately contacted OP No.1, but did not get any satisfactory reply. Upon application of complainant, Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Hisar got inspected the fields on 12.11.2011 and found that there was complaint of Tela, Chepa and safed makhi and Tinda in the said crop are almost nil. Further, it was found that on some plants the flower leaves and Bonki etc. are burnt, whereas it was also found that in the nearby fields there is no such damage to the crop and  thusassessed the loss to the extent 50-60%. It was further alleged that after obtaining report from Agriculture Department, the complainant again requested OP No.1 for compensation, but all in vain. Thus, there was deficiency in service on part of OPs.

4.                Upon notice, OPs appeared before learned District Commission and filed their separate written statements. OP No.1 in its written statement submitted therein that OP No.1 was only a distributor of pesticides in question and used to sell the packets in the sealed packet. It was submitted that complainant himself demanded the required pesticides and no assurance was given by OP No.1 and denied all the allegations levelled upon it. Finally prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                OP No.2 in its written statement submitted that OP No.2 was the manufacturer of pesticides in question and same are subject to test of quality control by expert staff of OP No.2. It was submitted that complainant used the products in different seasons of the crop whereas the same was alleged to have been used in a cotton crop which is highly improbable. It was further submitted that the product of OP No.2 carries instruction in the product for its use and in case, the instructions are not followed properly, the same cannot give any benefit for its use. Finally, it was submitted that no loss was suffered by the complainant due to spraying of pesticides which were manufactured by OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

6.                After hearing the parties, learned District Commission dismissed the complaint as mentioned above in 2^nd para supra.

7.                Aggrieved from the impugned order passed by learned District Commission, complainant-appellant has preferred present appeal for setting aside the impugned order by praying for accepting the present appeal.

8.                The arguments have been advanced by Mr. Ajit Sihag, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Rose Gupta, Advocate & Ms. Garima Modi, Advocate, learned counsel for respondent No.1. However, none has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 since year, 2019. With their kind assistance, contents of the appeal have also been properly perused and examined.

9.                While unfolding the arguments it has been argued by Mr. Ajit Sihag, learned counsel for the appellant that appellant-complainant purchased cotton seeds from respondent No.1 (dealer) and had sown the same in his 5 acres of agriculture land. He further argued that he also purchased some pesticides from respondent No.1, which were manufactured by respondent No.2 and sprayed the said pesticides upon his cotton crop as directed by respondent No.1, but after some months 75 to 80% of cotton crop was ruined and plant of cotton crop was almost destroyed. Thereafter, upon application of complainant, Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Hisar got inspected the fields on 12.11.2011 and found that there was complaint of Tela, Chepa and safed makhi and Tinda in the said crop are almost nil. Further, it was found that on some plants the flower leaves and Bonki etc. are burnt, whereas it was also found that in the nearby fields there is no such damage to the crop and assessed the loss to the extent 50-60%. He further argued that learned District Commission erroneously considered that in the report of Agriculture Department, it was nowhere mentioned that how the land of complainant has been identified or how the land was connected with the complainant and dismissed the complaint of complainant on this sole ground. Finally he prayed for setting aside the order passed by learned District Commission by accepting present appeal.

10.              On the other hand, Mr. Rose Gupta Advocate & Ms. Garima Modi, Advocate for respondent No.1 has argued that respondent No.1 is only a distributor of pesticides in question and used to sell the packets in the sealed manner. They further argued that appellant himself demanded the required pesticides and no assurance was given by respondent No.1 and denied all the allegations levelled upon it and there was no deficiency in service on the part of respondent No.1. Finally, they argued that learned District Commission rightly dismissed the complaint vide its impugned order.

11.             In view of the above submissions and on a careful perusal of the entire record, it is admitted that the appellant-complainant purchased seeds for his cotton crop from respondent No.1. It is also an admitted fact that he also purchased some pesticides from respondent No.1, who is only the dealer of said pesticides and the same were manufactured by respondent No.2. As per the appellant after spraying the said pesticides on his crop, the crop was destroyed as the pesticides are of inferior quality. It is also an admitted fact that as per the report of Agriculture Department, 50 to 60% crop of the appellant was destroyed, whereas there was no such complaint in nearby fields of appellant. However, learned District Commission ignored this fact and after going into technicalities dismissed the complaint on the ground that “it was nowhere mentioned how the land of complainant has been identified”. Learned District Commission also ignored the fact that complainant is a farmer who does not know about the technicalities of law process.

12.              In aforesaid and in considered opinion of this Commission, impugned order passed by learned District Commission being devoid of merit is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to learned District Commission for deciding the complaint afresh on merits after affording proper opportunities to the parties. In view of this, present appeal stands partly allowed. Parties are directed to appear before learned District Commission on 20.11.2023 for further proceedings.

13.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

 14.               Application(s), pending, if any, stands disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.

 15.               File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

 

Pronounced on 16.10.2023                                                          S.C. Kaushik                                                                                                                       Member                                                                                                                                 Addl. Bench