LAWS(NCD)-2023-12-7

JAGDISH PRASHAD Vs. CHIEF MANAGER, DHANUKA AGRITECH LTD

Decided On December 20, 2023
JAGDISH PRASHAD Appellant
V/S
Chief Manager, Dhanuka Agritech Ltd Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition No. 76 of 2022 challenges the impugned order of the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal ('State Commission', hereafter) dtd. 14/12/2021. Vide this order, the State Commission had dismissed Appeal No.1615 of 2014. In turn, this appeal had been filed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sagar, M.P. ('District Forum', hereafter) dtd. 16/7/2014. Vide this order, the District Forum, had also dismissed the Complaint filed by the Petitioner/Complainant.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Petitioner/ Complainant had purchased 32 sets of pesticides, namely, Terga Super, Qurin, and Dhanuvet, from the respondent No.2 (OP2), a dealer of respondent No.1 (OP1), on 8/7/2011 for Rs.51,840..00 These pesticides were for spraying on a soybean crop cultivated on approximately 97 acres between 1/7/2011 and 5/7/2011, as well as on 12/7/2011. Despite the Complainant spraying the pesticides from 21/7/2011 to 27/7/2011, the intended effect of eliminating kharpatwar (weeds) was not achieved. He reported this issue to OP2. Subsequently, on 1/8/2011, OP2 had sent the employees of OP1, namely, Mr. Virendra Kumar, M.O., Mr. Vivek Singh Rajput, and Mr. Vijay Kushwaha, D.D to the Complainant's village and demonstration was held on 1/8/2011, and an examination took place on 10/8/2011. The results were not as expected, and a report was submitted in writing, signed by the three employees, the village Sarpanch, and the Complainant. Thereafter, the Complainant filed a complaint on 9/8/2011 with the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Sagar. Upon scrutiny, their officers, scientists and employees found the purchased medicines to be suspicious and substandard. They noted tampering with the bottles seals, and details such as the date of manufacture, expiry date, batch No. etc missing. The team sent by OP1 found tall kharpatwar due to the inefficacy of the medicines purchased. Consequently, the complainant, who suffered a reduced soybean crop yield, sent a legal notice to the OPs, demanding Rs.51,840.00for the cost of the medicines, Rs.20,00,000.00 for damages to the crops, and Rs.15,000.00 for expenses incurred in farming. The notice was duly received, but neither damages were paid nor a response provided. The Complainant alleged a deficiency of services and filed a Consumer Complaint before the learned District Forum against the respondents/opposite parties, seeking a total of Rs.19,09,800.00 for expenses on medicines, damages to crops, and agricultural expenses.

(3.) The Respondents/Opposite Parties, in their Reply before the District Forum contended that due reply was given to the notice sent by the Complainant. The Petitioner did not give information regarding the non-effectiveness of the said medicines to the OPs. No testing regarding non-effectiveness of the said medicines was got done by the Petitioner in a laboratory nor has any report has been submitted. The medicine manufactured by the OP No.1 was not duplicate. It was also averred that the Petitioner would have used the said medicines without adhering to weather conditions. The produce of the crop depends on the type of seed, favorability of weather, quality of land and quality of chemical fertilizer used. The Petitioner had given no details regarding the said type of the seed in his complaint. The product of the Opposite Parties had been used in other regions of India including Madhya Pradesh as well but no such complaint has been received by the OPs from any corner. The Petitioner has alleged regarding duplicate medicines on concocted thoughts and hence he is not entitled for any relief.