DE Vs. RAM KISHAN & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above two revision petitions have been filed against the order dated 14.10.2010 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh, (in short 'the State Commission') by M/s. Gopi Chand and Company (Revision Petition No. 4479 of 2010) and by Denocil Crop Protection Pvt. Ltd. (Revision Petition No. 4632 of 2010). Before the State Commission, First Appeal No. 511 of 2009 was filed by M/s. Gopi Chand and Company, Opposite Party No. 1 and the First Appeal No. 512 of 2009 was filed by Opposite Party No. 2 against the order dated of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa, (in short 'the District Forum') wherein the complaint of complainant/respondent No. 1 was allowed.

(2.) The facts of the case are as under:-

(3.) The complainant owns his agricultural land in village Baruwali-I Tehsil and District Sirsa. In Kharif 2003 season, the complainant sown Narma (Kapas-A) crop in his 20 acres of land. The complainant in order to protect his said Narma (Kapas) crop from insects and disease approached the O.P. No. 1 and asked for some good quality insecticides, whereupon the OP No. 1 recommended Tracer insecticide for the same. The complainant purchased two liters of Tracer insecticide i.e. 8 containers of 250 ml each bearing batch No. RH 04681110 at the total cost of Rs. 18,700/-, vide bill no. 511 dated 20.09.2003. After the purchase of said insecticide the complainant sprayed the same on his entire 20 acres of Narma crop but with the spray of this insecticide, the entire Narma Crop of the complainant standing in 20 acres of land was burnt and the flowers fell down. The complainant on noticing the said loss to his crop immediately approached the OP No. 1 and requested him to visit his field and to assess the loss suffered by him with the application of the insecticide supplied by him. But the OP No. 1 did not pay any heed to the demand of the complainant. The complainant also moved an application to the Deputy Director Agriculture Sirsa and requested for inspection of his field and also moved an application to the village Panchayat and Lambardar of the village. The officers of the agriculture department visited the fields of the complainant and took the sample of the same insecticide from the complainant. The Officer of the Agriculture Department told the complainant that the sample will be sent to Govt. Laboratory and as soon as the report is received, the same will be supplied to the complainant. The village Panchayat also visited the spot of the said crop and made a report, wherein it was categorically stated that the entire crop of the complainant has been burnt due to the use of above insecticide. The complainant thereafter approached OP No. 1 and requested him that due to supply of deflective insecticide, his entire 20 acres narma crop has been totally damaged and OP No. 1 should pay him adequate compensation, but the OP No. 1 did not pay any heed to the same. The complainant later received the report from the Agriculture Department about the result of sample of insecticide, which was obtained from him. The said report is dated 8.2.2005 wherein, the aforesaid insecticide has been declared as misbranded. In this way, the complainant has suffered the total loss of his 20 acres of Narma crop. A complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Forum that he has suffered a net loss of Rs. 4 lacs which he is entitled to get from the respondents along with the price of the insecticide i.e. Rs. 18.700/-. As the OP No. 2 has produced and marketed highly inferior quality of insecticide and OP No. 1 has sold and supplied the same in the market, hence both the respondents are liable to compensate the complainant for the losses suffered by him. The respondents by their act and conduct have indulged in unfair trade practise and have committed gross deficiency towards the complainant.