State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Oswals Chemical And Fertilizers Ltd., vs Shri.Sahebrao Raghunath ... on 8 June, 2009
1 F.A.No.:1310/2004
Date of filing :23.07.2004
Date of order :08.06.2009
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. :1310 OF 2004
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.:20 OF 2004
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM :AHMEDNAGAR.
Manager,
Oswals Chemical and Fertilizers Ltd.,
Paradip Orissa. ...APPELLANT
(Org.Opp.No.1)
VERSUS
1. Shri.Sahebrao Raghunath Lavhat(Deceased),
Legal heirs,
1A. Bharat Sahebrao Lavhat,
1B. Sanjay Sahebrao Lavhat,
R/o Varur, Tq.Shevgaon,
Dist.Ahmednagar.
2. Ramnarayan Bansidar Lahoti,
Prop.M/s Balaji Tranders,
R/o Nagar Shevgaon Road,
Tq.Shevgaon, Dist.Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS
` (No.1-Org.Complainants,
No.2-Org.Opp.No.2)
CORAM : Shri.S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
Mrs.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Adv.Shri.O.S.Dipole for appellant, Shri.Bharat Lavhat for respondent No.1, None for respondent No.2.
O R A L O R D E R Per Mrs.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
1. Manager, Oswal Chemical and Fertilizer Ltd. Paradip in the State of Orissa is appellant herein. Appellant challenges the order 2 F.A.No.:1310/2004 passed by District Forum, Ahmednagar in complaint case No.20/04 decided on 25.06.2004.
2. The facts of the complaint are as under.
Respondent No.1 is the original complainant and respondent No.2 is dealer of Fertilizer Company. Complainant Sahebrao Lavat is the resident of Varud(Bk), Tq.Shevgaon, Dist.Ahmednagar. Complainant is an agriculturists and member of joint family. Joint family owns agriculture land gut No.97, 94, 95/2 & 92. For the season 2003 he sowed cotton seed in his 16 acres joint family land. For getting more yield he approached respondent No.2 for purchase of fertilizers. Respondent No.2 persuaded him to purchase Oswal D.A.P. 18-46% variety of fertilizer manufactured by the appellant. Complainant purchased 12 bags of said fertilizer. After germination of seeds it was required to apply doses of fertilizer. Accordingly, he spread fertilizer. But it was found that effect of said fertilizer is not as per expectation. Therefore he approached Agriculture Circle Officer Shri.Hapse. The said Officer directed him to use fertilizer by mixing it with water. Accordingly complainant mixed the said fertilizer in the water. At the time of mixing the fertilizer it was found that approximately 250 -300 gm. sand was mixed in the fertilizer. Therefore he approached to Agriculture Quality Control Officer who inspected the field and conducted the panchanama. The said officer obtained the sample of said fertilizer from the shop of opponent No.2 and sent it to laboratory for testing. On 22.09.2003 Agriculture Officer received the report from Government Laboratory which mentions that "sample is not according to specification and failed in nitrogen and phosphate". The said report was supplied to the complainant by Agriculture Officer therefore complainant approached Dist.Forum by claiming Rs.1,20,000/- compensation for loss of cotton crop of 16 acres.
3 F.A.No.:1310/20043. Appellant appeared before the Forum and denied the complaint. It is submitted that quality of fertilizer was standard. They also denied the contents of panchanama about growth of crop and about fertilizer. It is contended that sample taken from shop of opponent No.2 and fertilizer purchased by complainant is of different lot number. Therefore report is not applicable.
4. After hearing both the parties Dist.Forum directed the opponent No.1/appellant to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation within a month, else it will carry interest @ 10%. Dist.Forum also directed appellant to pay Rs.2000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1000/- towards cost.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order org.opponent No.1 came in appeal.
6. Notices of final hearing were issued to the both the parties. Adv.Shri.O.S.Tipole appeared on behalf of appellant. Shri.Bharat Lavhat son of deceased Sahebrao appeared in person. Respondent No.2 remained absent. Adv.Shri.Tipole submitted that fertilizer sold to the complainant was of best quality. Sample taken by Agriculture Officer from the shop of respondent No.2 and fertilizer purchased by complainant was of different lot. Therefore the report obtained from Government Laboratory is not binding on the appellant. It is submitted by Adv.Shri.Tiple that complainant sold 1 hector 20 R land of Gut No.97 before lodging the complaint. Therefore he is in possession of only 20 R land. Complainant did not produce any evidence about his loss. Complainant used only 6 bags of fertilizer. There is no particular submitted by complainant about remaining 6 bags. Appellant also obtained report dated 22.10.2003 from the Government Testing Laboratory wherein it is mentioned that sample is according to specification. Complainant filed complaint with ulterior motive to grab the money. Therefore complaint be dismissed.
4 F.A.No.:1310/20047. Shri.Bharat Lavhat submitted that joint family owns many land. Only some part of Gut No.97 was sold and remaining lands are with family only. No sooner complainant found that fertilizer is not of quality as promised by opponent No.2, he approached to Circle Officer and said officer conducted panchanama of the fertilizer. Agriculture Officer also took the sample from shop of opponent No.2 and sent the said sample to Government Laboratory. The report of said Government Laboratory clearly mentions that sample is not according to specification.
8. It also mentioned that question regarding bad quality of fertilizer supplied by appellant was also raised in the Assembly. Thereafter the said company was restricted from selling fertilizer in the State of Mahrashtra. Report given by Government Laboratory is dated 12.9.2003. Report mentions that fertilizer is not of proper quality. Therefore complainant approached the Forum.
9. We heard learned counsel Shri.Tipole and Bharat Lavhat and perused the record. Complainant purchased Oswal D.A.P.18-46% fertilizer from opponent No.2 which was manufactured by appellant. As soon as said fertilizer was applied to crop it was found that fertilizer is not of proper quality. Immediately complainant approached Agriculture Officer and said Officer gave directions to the complainant for the use of fertilizer. Accordingly complainant used the fertilizer and that fertilizer is found mixed with some sand. Taluka Agriculture Officer took the sample of the same lot from the dealer of fertilizer company i.e. opponent No.2 and sent to the Government Laboratory. Report of laboratory received on 12.9.2003 clearly mentioned that fertilizer is not of proper quality. Officer knows the procedure of obtaining sample and sent it to the laboratory. Therefore procedure can not be discarded. Report dated 12.9.2003 is the first report. Thereafter report dated 22.10.2003 is brought on record by the appellant which is in favour of appellant. When the first 5 F.A.No.:1310/2004 report is about defectiveness of the quality there is no reason to disbelieve the said report. As per Section 2(1)(f) "defect" means 'any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or(under any contract, express or implied, or) as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods'. As per definition of defect we think that fertilizer supplied by the appellant was of defective quality. Report first in time has clearly mentioned that fertilizer is not as per specification. District Forum rightly considered all the facts and evidence in right perspective while deciding the complaint. We do not want to interfere the order passed by the Forum. Hence the order.
O R D E R 1. Appeal is dismissed.
2. Appellant is to pay Rs.1000/- as cost to respondent No.1.
3. Copies of the judgment be issued to both the parties.
Mrs.Uma S.Bora S.G.Deshmukh
Member Presiding Judicial Member.
Mane