Jasbir Singh Gill, Member
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant-opposite party No. 1 (hereinafter called as âappellantâ) against the order dated 8.1.2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa (hereinafter called as âDistrict Forumâ) vide which the complaint of the respondent No. 1-complainant (hereinafter called as ârespondent No. 1â) was allowed.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 had purchased weedicide named total herbicide for control of the wild growth in his wheat crop vide bill No. 5139 dated 27.12.2006 for Rs. 2,905/- and he sprayed the aforesaid weedicide on his wheat crop on seven acres but after few days he noticed that his wheat crop had turned pale. The matter was reported to the appellant, who tried to control the damage by spraying certain insecticides but it did not affect and lateron he stopped visiting the crop of the respondent No. 1. An application dated 24.1.2007 was filed by the respondent No. 1 to the Chief Agriculture Officer, Mansa, who got the crop inspected and submitted his report dated 1.3.2007. It was alleged that the respondent No. 1 suffered lost of the wheat crop to the tune of Rs. 1,26,000/- from seven acres of land which includes 5 acres owned by him and 2 acres taken on lease. The act of the appellant was deficient in service towards respondent No. 1.
3. Hence, the complaint before the District Forum, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 70,000/- on account of damage to the crop, Rs. 25,000/- on account of mental harassment in addition to the costs of litigation from the appellant and respondent No. 2 and 3.
4. Upon notice, appellant filed written version in which it was alleged that it had purchased the weedicide from respondent No. 3 vide bill dated 1619 dated 27.12.2006 in packed form and had sold the same to the respondent No. 1 as such, he was not liable in any way for the alleged deficiency. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
5. Parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6. The learned District Forum, after going through the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record, allowed the complaint of the respondent No. 1 and directed the appellant and respondents No. 2 and 3 to pay Rs. 22,000/- regarding loss to crop and Rs. 5,000/- as compensation.
7. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has come up in appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had purchased the said pesticide from respondent No. 3 in sealed container/original packet and further sold it to the respondent No. 1 in the same manner. As per the provisions of the Insecticides Act, 1968 where the dealer has purchased the pesticide in the sealed contained then the dealer is not liable for any violation if any committed under the provisions of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and the fault if any is of the manufacturer. It was further submitted that the District Forum has wrongly relied upon the report of the Chief Agriculture Officer, which is not based on any analysis report and the sample was not sent to the state laboratory for its analysis. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. Acceptance of the appeal and setting aside of the impugned order was prayed.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submitted that there was no merit in the appeal and the same may be dismissed.
10. Submissions have been considered. Record has been perused.
11. There is no dispute that the respondent No. 1 had purchased weedicide named total herbicide for control of the wild growth in his wheat crop from the shop of the appellant vide bill No. 5139 dated 27.12.2006 (Ex. C-9) for Rs. 2,905/-. After spray of the above said pesticides, the crop on seven acres was damaged. Evidence of loss is also proved by the Ex. C-8, copy of the complaint to the Chief Agriculture Officer, Mansa and Agriculture Officer has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 11,000/- per hectare. Ex. C-10 is the copy of jamabandi which indicates that the respondent No. 1 was the owner of 30 kanals of land, which was cultivated by him. Copy of Form-J (Ex. C-6) relates to the sale of the wheat crop by the respondent No. 1 to the extent of 60 quintals only. The matter was reported to the appellant to control the damage by spraying and the appellant visited the spot and he again gave certain insecticides to control the damage by spraying certain insecticides but it was not controlled by it. This fact was mentioned in para No. 5 of the complaint but the appellant has not rebutted this fact in affidavit. If any facts stated by the parties in evidence are not rebutted by the other parties then it implies that the latter has been accepted it as true and correct.
12. In our view the learned District Forum validly and legally allowed the complaint of the respondent No. 1 and there is no ground to interfere with the order of the learned District Forum. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed and the impugned order of the learned District Forum under appeal is upheld. No order as to costs.
13. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 13,500/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 12.2.2008. This amount of Rs. 13,500/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent No. 1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and the appellant.
14. The interest on the amount of Rs. 13,500/- shall stop running from the date on which the appellant had deposited the same in this Commission. Interest on this amount of Rs. 13,500/- shall be what has accrued on this amount when it remained deposited by this Commission in the Bank.
15. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent No. 1 immediately as per order of District Forum.
16. The arguments were heard on 29.1.2013 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
17. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period because of the heavy pendency of the court cases.