AMARJEET AND COMPANY Vs. SHIV CHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 17.2.2005 passed by District Forum, Gurgaon, whereby while accepting the complaint of the respondent complainant, the appellant has been directed to pay Rs. 60,000 as compensation within one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order, failing which to pay interest on the amount of compensation @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till payment.

(2.) THE facts as can be gathered from the record briefly stated are that Shiv Charan - complainant had taken six acres land on lease from the Gram Panchayat and had cultivated Arhar crop in two acres of land. Due to rains, insects started causing damage to the said crop. The complainant in the accompany of Krishan went to the shop of M/s. Amarjeet and Company -appellant -opposite party and after showing the insects which were causing damage to his crop purchased insecticides namely Milstim and Metacid against the payment of Rs. 620 for which cash memo was obtained. The complainant used the insecticides as per instructions given by the appellant but instead of bringing any improvements it caused more damage to the flowers of the Arhar (cereal). The leaves of the said crop started falling down within no time no flowers and leaves of the crop were left except the stems in the field. The complainant approached the appellant and requested him to visit the spot but he paid no heed to his request and rather stated that he can take whatever action desired by him. Thereafter the complainant approached the experts of the Agriculture Department to save his crop from further damage. Thereafter experts of the Agriculture Department visited his fields on 7.10.2003 and informed him that his Arhar crop was damaged due to the use of the insecticides which were of sub -standard and no further treatment was possible. They further ensured him that a report in this regard would be submitted. It is, thereafter, the present complaint was filed.

(3.) ON notice, the appellant refuted the stand of the complainant. In the written statement filed, it was pleaded that the result of the use of the insecticides depending upon the equipment used for spray, concentration of insecticides and the method used for spray and thus denied his liability to pay the compensation amount. It was further pleaded that insecticides and pesticides supplied to the complainant was not of sub -standard quality as maintained by the complainant. It was also pleaded that he is an authorised dealer of the manufacturer.