VED PARKASH GOPAL DASS Vs. DEVI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred against the order dated 17.2.2005 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa whereby while accepting the complaint of the respondent -complainant, the following relief was granted:

(2.) THE brief facts of the present case are that complainant Devi Lal has purchased three bags of D.A.F. fertilizer from the opposite party. The complainant had sprayed the same in three Killa of land in the crop of Sirso and in one Killa of wheat crops per the direction of the opposite party as per norms. The grievance of the complainant before the District Forum was that the fertilizer supplied to him was duplicate, sub -standard and defective one and due to that his wheat crop wasbadly damaged/destroyed. The complainant approached the opposite party who assured the complainant that after passing of time it would give fruitful results to the complainant but the entire wheat crop of complainant had been destroyed. The complainant approached the opposite parties several times but the opposite party put the matter on one pretext or the other. Thereafter the complainant approached the Agriculture Officer but he did not take any action in this regard. The complainant demanded the bill of the fertilizer from the opposite party but the opposite party refused to issue the bill to the complainant. Thus, alleging it a case of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum.

(3.) UPON notice the opposite party appeared and contested the complaint. In the written statement it took the plea that the opposite party/firm neither sold the fertilizer to the complainant nor deals the business in sale and purchase of fertilizer, pesticides, etc. It is further pleaded that the opposite party is a commission agent at Mandi Dabwali and also having the business premises at Mandi Dabwali. The complainant sold his entire crops through the opposite party obtained the loan amount from opposite party, adjusted the same after sale of the crop. It is further alleged that complainant had not paid the entire loan amount and also refused to pay the same. Denying any kind of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, it was prayed that complaint be dismissed.