Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. O.P.Nos.1 & 2 have filed their written statement jointly and averred that the complainant does not come in the category of "consumer" and therefore this complaint is not maintainable and the relief sought by the complainant is of civil nature and can be adjudicated only by way of civil suit. Under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956 a complaint can be instituted only through a Company Secretary, therefore mis-joinder of the parties is present in the complaint. The complainant is carrying agriculture activities by taking // 5 // agriculture farm on rent from which it is clear that the complainant is working for the commercial purpose therefore, he does not come in the category of consumer as defined in Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The O.P.No.1 is not manufacturer of white potash fertilizer. The O.P.No.1 is a Joint Stock Company under Government of India, which is importing fertilizers under policy of Government of India and sell / distribute the same in various states under the provisions of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985. O.P.No.2, is regional head of the O.P.No.1 but the O.P.No.3 has not been authorized by the O.P.No.1 & 2 under Indian Companies Act, 1956 and O.P.No.3 is not responsible for any act of the O.P.Nss.1 & 2. The O.P.No.1 & 2 have not committed any transactions with O.P.No.3 in respect of subjected matter and therefore, under Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 and are not authorized. Resultantly, O.P.Nos.1 & 2 are not responsible for the act of the O.P.No.3. Deputy Director, Horticulture is not authorized to examine under Fertilizer control Order, 1985. Under Rule 27 and 28 of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 the Fertilizer Inspector appointed or authorized is only competent to inspect and took samples of fertilizer and to sent it to Fertilizer Control Laboratory, therefore, the report given by the Deputy Director, Horticulture is not acceptable and the news published in the newspaper cannot be made a basis for proving the facts. The complainant is not entitled for any relief. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

// 6 //

4. The O.P.No.3 also filed written statement separately and averred that the white potash was provided to O.P.No.3 by the authorized depot of the O.P.No.1. No advise was given to the complainant to spread the fertilizer through drip system. If the drip system was used by the complainant for spreading white potash fertilizer, then it is his individual responsibility and the O.P. No.3 is not liable for the loss suffered by the complainant The O.P.No.3 provided the standard quality of white potash to the complainant. Under Section 27 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 the appointed & authorized Fertilizer Inspector can only analyze the samples of the potash fertilizer, in the Fertilizer Quality Control Laboratory, Labhandi, District Raipur which is an authorized laboratory, from where after examining the white potash, it was found that the white potash was of standard quality. The white potash sold by the O.P. No.3 was of standard quality, which was confirmed by the analysis report of the authorized laboratory of the State Government and in this circumstance, the complaint of the complainant is influenced by the political activities. The complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

22. In Jaswinder Singh vs. Punjab Pesticides and Seeds & Ors., I (2014) CPJ 618 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission observed thus :

"7. Learned State Commission rightly observed in paragraphs 22,

23 and 25 as under :

"22. The original complaint of the appellants 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 of 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 Rambn was mixed with the other weedicides / fertilizer. If the appellant had sent the samples of power plus and agrianio then he should have sent the sample of Ramban fertilizer to the Lab so that the quality of Ramban could also // 26 // 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.