Amarjeet And Company vs SHIV CHARAN

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.

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. 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.

THE District Forum on appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence brought on record accepted the complaint and passed the order as stated above. It is, thereafter, the present appeal has been filed.

NONE has appeared on behalf of the appellant. During the course of arguments, the respondent has been heard in person at length. The ground taken in the memorandum of appeal has been considered. The challenge to the order passed by the District Forum has been made from the side of the appellant on the ground that the District Forum had not followed the procedure provided under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1986) and on this ground alone, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Additionally, it was pleaded that even the case of the complainant that he had approached the Agriculture Department and thereafter the experts of the Agriculture Department visited the fields of the complainant on

10.2003, BUT no evidence has been led by the complainant to support his stand. Alternatively, it was stated that the complainant had requested the District Forum to summon the report of the agricultural experts and rather the Deputy Director, Agriculture Department, Gurgaon sent a detailed reply dated 3.3.2005, wherein he has stated that the complainant had never approached the agriculture authorities and for that reason the claim put up by the complainant should have been rejected. It was further stated that no basis for claiming compensation of Rs. 1,20,000 has been made by the complainant. The pleas raised have been controverted from by the respondent. 7. The cursory examination of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act, 1986 would show that where the complainant alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the appropriate laboratory along with a direction that such laboratory make an analysis or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect and to report its findings thereon to the District Forum within a period of forty -five days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the District Forum. Manifestly, in this case, no such prayer has been made to the District Forum for getting the insecticides analysed. The District Forum while dealing this aspect has also taken notice of the fact that particulars of the manufacturer of the said insecticide/pesticide was noticed on the cash memo. None of the parties have not produced on record any empty label to show instructions for use or manufacturers names. This lapse of the complainant was ignored by the District Forum on the ground that the complainant was a poor labourer. There is hardly any justification for the approach adopted by the District Forum. It is the duty of the District Forum to get the sample of the insecticides analysed as required under Section 13 of the Act, 1986 and there being no expert evidence, it is not even proved on record to support a conclusion that the insecticides supplied by the appellant had actually caused damage to the flowers of the Arhar crop of the complainant.

ONE also cannot ignore the report Annexure A -4, which is a letter dated 3.3.2005 written by the Deputy Director, Agriculture Department, Gurgaon in answer to the notice given by the District Forum, Gurgaon, wherein it has been specifically stated that the complainant had never approached the agriculture authorities nor the District Forum has got any report as required under the mandatory provisions of the Act, 1986. There is no reason or justification to reject this document and rather it clearly shows that the complainant has put up a false ground that his crop was inspected by the agricultural experts and they have also given a finding that damage to the crop was attributed due to the insecticides used by the complainant. In fact, no such report has been produced on record to draw such a conclusion. Therefore, on this account as well, the case of the complainant deserves to be rejected. Under the circumstances, when it is not proved on record whether insecticide/pesticide purchased by the complainant from the appellant had actually caused damage to the crop, the question of allowing compensation, determined by the District Forum does not arise at all. Even otherwise, no basis for arriving at the compensation amount of Rs. 60,000 has been spelled out. Merely because the complainant has paid Rs. 31,000 to the Panchayat as lease money and had also sown the seed, irrigated the same and guarded the same is not sufficient to establish the basis of working out damage to the extent of Rs. 60,000 as ordered by the District Forum. For these reasons, the impugned order cannot be sustained. For the aforesaid reasons, we accept the appeal and while setting aside the impugned order, dismiss the complaint. The office is directed to refund the deposited amount of Rs. 25,000 to the appellant. Appeal allowed.