State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rameshwar Dayal vs Rameshwar Dayal on 22 July, 2015
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM M.P. First Appeal No. FA/13/231 (Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District State Commission) 1. RAMESHWAR DAYAL NULL ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. RAMESHWAR DAYAL NULL ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HONABLE MRS. HON. Smt. Neerja Singh PRESIDING MEMBER HONABLE MR. Subhash Jain MEMBER For the Appellant: Pradeep Shrivastava For the Respondent: Satish Sharma ORDER M.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.) Appeal No. 231/2013 Rameshwar Dayal Shrivastava ... Appellant Vs. Sanjay Nahar and another ... Respondents BEFORE; HON'BLE, SMT. NEERJA SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI SUBHASH JAIN, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: SHRI PRADEEP SHRIVASTAVA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT. SHRI SATISH SHARMA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS. O R D E R
( PASSED ON .07.2015 ) The following order of the Bench was delivered by Smt. Neerja Singh, Presiding Member.
This appeal is by the complainant, aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.12, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhopal in CC No. 988/2008, dismissing his complaint.
2. The case of the appellant is that he has agricultural land near Bhopal. In 2008-09, in the month of June, he sowed 4 quintals of soyabean. To destroy the weeds that that had grown, he asked his son to purchase a weedicide for him from respondent No. 1 dealer for Rs.7185/-, which was manufactured by respondent No. 2, Bayer Crop Science Ltd. He was assured : 2 :
that the weeds would be destroyed and that if he does not get a good crop of soyabean, the respondent No. 2 would compensate him. On 16.7.08, the weedicide, Whip Super was sprayed on his fields but two months later on 14.9.08 he found that the weeds had overtaken the crop. As a result he had a loss of about 70-80 quintals of soya bean crop. He has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and sought a compensation of Rs.2,19,000/- with 18% interest.
3. The respondent No.1 has raised the objection that the appellant is not his consumer since he did not purchase the weedicide. A Pradeep Kumar Shrivastava purchased the weedicide and other insecticides. If the weedicide is not used properly and as per directions, they cannot be responsible for its ineffectiveness. The weedicide was of a high standard and as per the norms specified. He states that no expert report has been filed to show that the weedicide did not conform to the specified standards.
4. Respondent No. 2 state that there is no expert evidence. They had the weedicide tested in their laboratory and it was found to be of the required quality.
5. Heard.
: 3 :
6. As regards the objection of the respondents that the appellant is not their consumer since he did not purchase the weedicide, we are of the view that the objection is too technical and deserves to be set aside. The appellant has on affidavit stated that he asked his son to purchase the weedicide for him. So even if the bill was prepared in the name of the son, the weedicide was used by the appellant.
7. Coming to the merits of the case, the appellant has stated that despite spraying the weedicide, the weeds in his fields were not destroyed. However, the appellant has not mentioned the proportions he used for preparing the weedicide. As per the brochure filed on record, Whip super had to be mixed in a specified proportion with Tranz and Surfactant and then sprayed. Though the appellant has filed affidavits of two labourers who state that they sprayed the weedicide, even they have not mentioned the proportions or method in which it was prepared and sprayed.
8. A Panchnama of villagers of village Badori has been filed on record which is undated. The villagers do not state whether they inspected the fields and on which date they did so. It is also significant to note that no complaint was made to Agriculture Extension Officer or any other authority in the : 4 :
Agriculture Department. There is no expert report of any agriculturist filed on record.
9. The respondents have filed certificates of testing of the weedicide of the same lot in their laboratory, which they had tested after the filing of the complaint. The test reports show that the sample was found to conform to the BIS specifications. If the appellant was not in agreement with these test reports, he could have given an application before the District Forum for testing by an independent agency, which was also not done by him.
10. It is clearly a case of no evidence. In the absence of any proof that the weedicide was of substandard quality, we do not find any merit in this appeal.
11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(SMT. NEERJA SINGH) (SUBHASH JAIN) PRESIDING MEMBER MEMBER [HONABLE MRS. HON. Smt. Neerja Singh] PRESIDING MEMBER [HONABLE MR. Subhash Jain] MEMBER