Judgment:
Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member
1) This appeal arises out of order/award dated 30/09/1998 passed in Consumer complaint No.APDF/153/1997, Santosh G.Waghmare V/s. M/s.Kuktadevi Krushi Seva Kendra and Others passed by Additional District Consumer Dispute
Redressal Forum, Pune (âForum below in short).
2) It is the case of the Respondent NO.1/Org. Complainant (hereinafter referred as âComplainant) that he had sown tomato crop plan in his field viz. in an area 30 R from gut no.1797 and 14 R from gut no.1800. He has used Pesticides/Insecticide/Fungicide, namely, Dimethoate 30 %, Sypermol 10 % and Powder Moti-Topsine 70 %, respectively manufactured by Respondent/Org.O.P. No.2-M/s.TropicalAgro System(India)Ltd.,Respondent/Org.O.P.No.3-M/s.Konkan Pesticides and Respondent/Org.O.P.No.4-M/s.Motilal Pesticides (India) Pvt.Ltd. It is further alleged by the Complainant that after using mixture spray of all above items, his tomato crop sustained severe damage and he could not get expected yield of Rs.70,000/-. It all happened due to defective products, supra. These products were purchased from dealer, appellant no.1- M/s.Muktadevi Krushi Seva Kendra. Therefore, he filed consumer complaint to recover the compensation for lost crop. It was partly allowed against the opposite parties excluding O.P.No.2-M/s.Tropical Agro System (India) Ltd. Being aggrieved thereby O.P.Nos.1 and 4 preferred this appeal.
3) We heard Advocate Mrs.Anita Marathe, for the Appellant holding for Advocate J.M.Baphana. Advocate Shri.V.G.Kulkarni, for Respondent No.2.and other Respondents remained absent though by way of abundant precaution notices of hearing were sent to them under certificate of posting. Perused the material placed on record in the appeal, particularly, the impugned order/award.
4) In the instance case based upon the laboratory report of the sample of Dimethoate 30 % manufactured by O.P.No.2, it was exonerated. The samples of Sypermol 10 % and Powder Moti-Topsine 70 % were also sent to laboratory but, results of analyses could not obtained since their quantity was insufficient for analyses. There is no evidence to show that these two products are defective products. Forum below, surprisingly, preferred to draw adverse inference against dealer-O.P.No.1 and also to fasten liability on appellants-O.P.No.1 and 4, accusing O.P.No.1 that it deliberately sent insufficient quantity to the laboratory for analyses. In fact, there is no basis or evidence or material on record to hold that insufficient quantities were sent deliberately. It may be pointed out that it is Taluka Development Agriculture Officer-cum-insecticide inspector had collected the samples and sent them to the laboratory. Therefore, very base on which Forum below drawn the adverse inference has gone. The inference drawn is perverse and erroneous. There is no other material on record to fasten any kind of liability for defective goods on O.P.No.1 dealer and O.P.No.4. The O.P.No.4 is not a manufacturer of insecticides or pesticides but it manufactures fungicide known as Powder Moti-Topsine 70 %. Said product is developed through research and not known for any adverse effect on the tomato plant and particularly not known for causing in psycho-toxic effect on the plant. This fact is affirmed in his affidavit by Mr.S.Sharma, Sales Manager of O.P.No.4 and there is no evidence to contradict the same. Complainant himself is not an expert. There is no affidavit of Taluka Development Agriculture Officer-cum-insecticide inspector. The Complainant miserably failed to establish that the products purchased from O.P.No.1 dealer were either defective or of failing standards and mixture of those products, when sprayed on his tomato crop, proved damaging the crop. Under the circumstances the impugned order/award cannot be supported in eyes of law. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:
Order:
1) Appeal allowed.
2) Impugned order/award dated 30/09/1998 stands set aside as against the Appellants/Org.O.P.No.1 and 4.
3) In the given circumstances both the parties to bear their own costs.
4) Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.