State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rallis India Ltd. vs Chand Singh on 15 March, 2017
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA. First Appeal No.796 of 2015 Date of Institution: 21.09.2015 Date of Decision: 15.03.2017 M/s Rallis India Ltd. 156/157, 15th Floor, Nariman Bhagwan, 227, Nariman Point, Mumbai, through its authorized person. .....Appellant VERSUS Chand Singh S/o Umed Singh R/o Vill. Dighal Tehsil Beri District Jhajjar. Ravinder Viz (Baniyani Wale), proprietor of Viz Khad Beej Store, Peeli Kothi, Old Bus Stand, Near Sabji Mandi Chowk, Hissar Road, Rohtak. .....Respondents CORAM: Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member. Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member. For the parties: Mr.N.K.Malhotra, Advocate counsel for the appellant. Mr.Rakesh Noniwal, Advocate counsel for the Respondent No.1. Mr. Deepender Ahlawat, Advocate for the respondent No.2. O R D E R
R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-
As per complainant he purchased weedicide make TATA Taarak from opposite party (O.P.) No.1 against payment of Rs.2200/- on 10.08.2011. He sprayed weedicide on crop of paddy basmati sown in five acres of land and just after few days the crop was damaged. As per his complaint Sub Divisional Officer Agriculture (SDO) appointed Mr. Niranjan Singh to assess the loss. He submitted his report about the loss suffered by him. Initially he filed complaint No.240 on 15./09.2011 but withdrew the same with permission to file fresh complaint vide order dated 21.02.2013 and benefit of limitation was extended to him. He suffered loss to the tune of Rs.2,77,200/- and O.Ps. be directed to pay the same alongwith compensation qua mental harassment, litigation expenses etc., as mentioned in the complaint.
2. O.Ps. filed separate replies controverting his claim. O.P.No.1 alleged that he did not take land on lease as alleged by him. Two containers of TATA Taarak were sold to him on 14.07.2011, but, the crop was not damaged due to spray of the same. None from it's side visited the field alongiwth officials of Agriculture Department. Objections about limitation, non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties, jurisdiction, locus standi etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.
3. In addition thereto, O.P.No.2 alleged that there was no evidence on the file showing that there was any defect in the product sold to him due to which the loss was caused. Fields of complainant were never visited by officer of agriculture department.
4. After hearing both the parties, the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (In short "District Forum") allowed the complaint and directed as under:-
"In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that opposite party No.2 shall pay the compensation of Rs.85575/- (Rupees eighty five thousand five hundred seventy five only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 04.03.2013 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of decision. Complaint is disposed of accordingly."
5. Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P.No.2 has preferred this appeal.
6. Arguments heard. File perused.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that there is no cogent evidence on the file showing that the crop was damaged due to spray of this weedicide. There is also no report that weedicide was adulterated or not proper. Complainant alleged that he gave sufficient water to this crop whereas according to guidelines issued about this crop, no water is required. Growth of plants can vary due to other facts also such as type of soil, climate, fertilizers etc. and it cannot be attributed to seeds only So impugned order be set aside.
8. This argument cannot help appellant. As per report of agriculture officer Ex.P-3 it is clear that his crop was damaged due to use of this weedicide. Why O.Ps. did not produce any report to rebut that evidence. Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined in M/s National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M.Madhusudhan Reddy and another 2012 (1) C.P.J.1 that when a farmer has used entire stock manufacturer can produce product of same lot for analysis, which is not done in the present case. This case is fully applicable in the present case. Learned District Forum rightly granted compensation as mentioned above. Hence the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
9. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.
March 15th, 2017 Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench S.K.