Back
CHHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAIPUR
VEENA MISRA, PRESIDING MEMBER, V.K. PATIL, MISS HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBERS
P.I. Industries Limited - Appellant
Versus
Mahendra Patel & Ors. - Respondents
Appeal No. FA/12/779
Decided on : 22-07-2013
Deficiency in Service - Agriculture - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r)] - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, particularly Section 2(1)(g) defining 'deficiency in service', Section 2(1)(o) defining 'goods', and Section 2(1)(r) defining 'service'. The court interpreted these provisions in the context of the case to determine the liability of the appellant company for supplying defective chemical resulting in loss to the complainants' crops. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these provisions, holding the appellant company liable for deficiency in service for not supplying proper quality of chemical, but not for the alleged loss to the crops.
Fact of the Case:
The complainants alleged unfair trade practice/deficiency in service against the appellant due to the sale of defective insecticide causing loss to their paddy crop. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to pay compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant company was liable for deficiency in service for not supplying proper quality of chemical, but not for any loss to the crops as alleged by the complainants.
Issues: The issues revolved around the liability of the appellant company for the alleged loss to the crops and the quantum of compensation to be awarded.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant company was liable for deficiency in service for not supplying proper quality of chemical, but not for any loss to the crops as alleged by the complainants. The court also determined the quantum of compensation based on the bills produced by the complainants.
Final Decision: The appeal of the appellant company was partly allowed, modifying the impugned order to direct the appellant to pay Rs. 4,100 to the complainants in lieu of the amount awarded by the District Forum, while the remaining part of the impugned order in respect of interest, mental agony, and cost of proceedings remained unaltered.
ORDER :
Mr. V.K. Patil, Member-Appellant, which was OP-1 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (hereinafter called “District Forum” for short) has filed this appeal having been aggrieved by the order dated 24.11.2012 passed in Complaint Case No. 217/2011, whereby complaint of the respondent Nos.1 to 3/complainants, alleging unfair trade practice/deficiency in service against the appellant herein, due to sale of defective insecticide causing loss to his paddy crop, was allowed. Appellant was directed to pay compensation as per the impugned order.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the complainants are members of the same family and had purchased a chemical “Nomino Gold” from OP-2 dealer which was meant for destroying weeds in crops. Aforesaid chemical had been manufactured by OP-1. Complainants used the aforesaid chemical in his 7 acres agriculture field situated at Arang by getting the same sprayed with the help of Shri S.K. Sahu an employee of OP-1 and OP-2 and it was observed that weeds in the field did not destroy rather the crop was damaged resulting into loss of Rs. 1,31,250. Complainants alleged that they had demanded compensation for aforesaid loss from OPs but no heed was given, as such they had committed deficiency in service so consumer complaint was filed praying before learned District Forum to direct OPs for payment of compensation of Rs. 1,31,250 towards loss to the crop, Rs. 21,616 towards manure and labour charges and Rs. 20,000 towards harassment and mental agony.
3. OP-1 in its reply, while denying other averments of the complainants averred that it had been marketing the chemical for last 45 years and due to its better quality it was preferred by cultivators. OP-1 has also averred that the chemical manufactured by it is being tested by highly skilled experts in a well equipped laboratory having scientific technical equipments in accordance with prescribed ISI standard and norms. OP-1 further averred that actually the chemical is manufactured by a Japanese company which is imported, as such that manufacturer company should also have been impleaded as party in the complaint. OP-1 further averred that the allegation made by the complainants should have been established by an authorized laboratory report and they have not even mentioned the batch number or expiry date of the chemical used by them and also in what manner they had used it. Sample of the used chemical has also not been produced for laboratory test. No complaint was lodged with the customer cell of the company in that regard. OP-1 denied that Shri S.K. Sahu as mentioned in the complaint was its employee. Complainants have also not proved loss caused to their crops. OP-1 averred that the complaint of the complainant was baseless and false thus prayed for dismissal of the same.
4. OP-2 the dealer in its reply has averred that it had been selling the chemical since 1990 and its office is situated at Udaipur (Rajasthan). OP-2 has further averred that it had been maintaining the chemical material as per direction of the company and since sealed bottles of the chemical are sold to the customers so there was no question of adulteration. While selling the chemicals leaflets containing directions of use were also provided to the complainants. OP-2 has also averred that on receipt of the complaint, OP-1 was promptly intimated for its redressal and Shri S.K. Sahu an employee of the company inspected the field also. OP-2 averred that no deficiency in service was committed by it, thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. Learned District Forum after having perused the documents produced before it and heard arguments of parties, allowed the complaint and directed OP-1 and OP-3 to pay compensation of Rs. 1,31,250 to the complainants together with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of order. Compensation of Rs. 5,000 towards mental agony and Rs. 1,000 towards cost of litigation was also directed to be paid.
6. We have perused t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
