National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Jaswinder Singh S/O Gurmukh Singh ... vs M/S. Punjab Pesticides And Seeds on 30 January, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2659 OF 2008 (From the order dated 05.05.2008 in First Appeal No. 1278/2003 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh) Jaswinder Singh S/o Gurmukh Singh Zimidar R/o of Village Enna Khera, Tehsil Malout, District Muktsar Petitioner/Complainant Versus 1. M/s. Punjab Pesticides and Seeds, Shop No. 54-A, New Grain Market, Malout, Tehsil Malout, Distt. Muktsar, Through Sh. Rakesh Kumar 2. Agrimass Chemical Ltd. H.Z.M.I.D.C. Industrial Area Taloja, Distt. Rajgarh 410 208 (M.P.) 3. Vam Organic Chemical Ltd. Bhartia Gramin Gajrola, District Jotica Phulla Nagar244223 Respondents/Opp. Parties (OP) BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. M. Padhi, Advocate For Mr. S.S. Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Rohit Kapoor, Advocate For the Respondent No.2 : NEMO For the Respondent No.3: Mr. Manan Batra, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON 30th January, 2014 O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 05.05.2008 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 1278 of 2003 Jaswinder Singh Vs. M/s. Punjab Pesticides & Seeds & Ors. by which, while dismissing appeal of the petitioner and allowing appeal of respondent, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/Petitioner had sown paddy crop in 32 killas of land. He purchased pesticides and fertilizers from OP No. 1/Respondent No. 1 which were manufactured by OP No. 2&3/Respondent No. 2&3 and he was suggested by OP No. 1 that if he sprays carbonic fertilizer by mixing Ram Ban with Power Plus, Agrianilo, Anilophos 30% herbicide then the yield of paddy crop will be much more and the crops will not be affected by any insects etc. Believing the representation made by respondent No. 1, the petitioner purchased these insecticides, weedicides and bio-chemicals from the shop of respondent No. 1 on 13.6.2002 for an amount of Rs.780/-, on 15.6.2002 for an amount of Rs.4,370/- and on 19.6.2002 for an amount of Rs.3,950/- for which bills were issued by respondent no. 1.
The payment was made to respondent No. 1by the petitioner through M/s. Bhullar Brothers who were his Commission Agents. It was further pleaded that as advised by respondent No. 1, the petitioner mixed both these chemicals with fertilizer and sprayed the same in the paddy crop sown in 32 killas of land. He was shocked to find out that after few days the paddy crop started withering and was completely damaged. The petitioner lodged the complaint against respondent No. 1 with the Assistant Plant Protection Officer who along with the Agriculture Officer inspected the spot and submitted his report. It was further alleged that respondent No. 2 & 3 who were manufacturers of pesticides/fertilizers were liable. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP No. 1 filed written statement and submitted that respondent no. 1 was the dealer and he sold goods in a sealed form and he was not responsible and manufacturers alone were responsible; hence, complaint be dismissed. OP No. 2 admitted manufacturing of the product and further submitted that his product was to be preserved under proper temperature away from the sunshine. It was further submitted that Anilophos was to be spread in the field, but petitioner had mixed Anilophos with two fertilizers and spread in the field which was not permitted. OP No. 3 filed written statement and submitted that products manufactured by OP No. 3 were to be preserved under proper temperature which was to be spread alone without mixing. It was further submitted that crop of the appellant had withered due to bad quality of soil water and for want of rainy water and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint against OP No. 1 and 3 and directed them to pay Rs.3,20,000/- on account of loss of crop and Rs.27,000/- which was paid by the complainant to the Gram Panchayat village Enna Khera as Theka, Rs.9,100/- cost of product and Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and complaint was dismissed against OP No.
2. Complainant as well as OP filed appeals before State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed appeal filed by the complainant, but allowed appeal filed by OPs and set aside order of District Forum and complaint was dismissed against which, this revision petition has been filed.
3. None appeared for Respondent No. 2 even after service.
4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Respondent No. 1 & 3 and perused record.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to spray of product of Respondent No. 3, crop of petitioner was damaged. This argument is apparently devoid of force as on the complaint of petitioner Agriculture Development Officer went to the house of petitioner and on an inquiry, a lady from house told that due to bad underground water and in absence of rains, Chana crop was not on the site; hence, she cannot say whether crop was damaged by Ramban or not. He further submitted in his report that near the field of petitioner, other field of Chana crop was drying due to underground water and scarcity of water and in absence of rainy water.
6. Learned State Commission rightly observed in paragraphs 18 & 19 as under:
18. Once the appellant had filed an application on 19.7.2002 to the Assistant Plant Protection Officer and had invited him for spot inspection at least he should have kept the paddy crop un-ploughed for inspection purposes. Within three days the Agriculture Development Officer on the instructions of the Assistant Plant Protection Officer visited the spot and he was told that the crops were already ploughed. Therefore, the Agriculture Development Officer could not find out if the paddy crop of the appellant had been damaged because of the use of Ramban fertilizer as was alleged by the appellant in the application dated 19.7.2002 or because of the bad quality of sub-soil water and because of shortage of rainy water as was told to the Agriculture Development Officer by the wife of the appellant or because of the use of mixture of Ramban. Power Plus, Agrianilo etc as is the version of the appellant in this complaint. This factor also goes against the appellant.
19. The Agriculture Development Officer has reported that the owners of adjoining fields had also reported that their crops were also damaged because of the bad quality of sub soil water and for want of rainy water. If the crops of the adjoining fields had withered for this reason it becomes unbelievable if the paddy crops of the appellant had not withered for the same reason which was responsible for damaging the crops of the adjoining fields. Moreover, the appellant himself contradicted his version contained in the application dated 19.7.2002 and has introduced a new version in the complaint. Therefore, it makes more probable that the paddy crop of the appellant was also damaged because of bad quality of sub soil water and for want of rainy water. It appears that the appellant has made out two different stories at two different times to claim compensation.
7. Learned State Commission rightly observed in paragraphs 22,23 & 25 as under:
22. The original complaint of the appellant was that use of Ramban fertilizer had damaged the crops of the appellant but sample of Ramban was not sent to any laboratory. Even otherwise, in the present complaint the appellant had alleged that on the advice of respondent No. 1 he had mixed the weedicides with the fertilizer and then had used the mixture on his paddy crop which damaged his crops. It means, therefore, that even Ramban was mixed with the other weedicides/fertilizer. If the appellant had sent the samples of power plus and agrianilo then he should have sent the sample of Ramban fertilizer to the Lab. so that the quality of Ramban could also have been analysed and assessed. There is also no report on the file if the mixing of these weedicides with the fertilizers could have damaged the paddy crops.
23. In other words, neither Ramban fertilizer has been got tested by the appellant against which he had complained originally nor he had got tested the mixture of all these chemicals if these were liable to damage his crop.
25. So far as the analysis report of fertilizer sample of Power Plus (Ex. C-13) is concerned the respondents had taken the plea in the written statement that these sealed packets were required to be kept in particular temperature and were to be kept away from sunshine failing which these were likely to lose its strength. There is no evidence on the file if these instructions of respondent No. 2 were followed either by respondent No. 1 or by the appellant himself before sending the sample to the chemical laboratory. Moreover, the appellant has admitted in his cross-examination that he had kept the weedicides/fertilizers in his room. The light was entering the room where he had placed the insecticides/fertilizers. Therefore, it might be possible that because the power plus and agrianilo were not kept in proper temperature away from the sunshine which reduced the strength of these insecticides/weedicides/fertilizers.
8. Petitioner has not led any evidence to prove the fact that sample from insecticides/fertilizers purchased by the petitioner from the respondents was sent for analysis by District Forum. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that as the drug purchased by the petitioner had already been spread in the fields, petitioner purchased another drug and had sent for analysis through District Forum. Respondent cannot be held responsible for any loss on the basis laboratory report of the drug which was purchased by petitioner from the respondents, later on, which was not part of insecticides/fertilizers sprayed in the field.
9. In the light of above discussion, we do not find any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
10. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents is dismissed with no order as to costs.
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER ..
( DR. B.C. GUPTA ) MEMBER k