NARSINHBHAI KUBERDAS PATEL Vs. RHONE PULENC AGRO CHEMICALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals arise from order dated 31.12.1997 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad (Rural), dismissing Complaint Nos.105, 106 and 107 of 1996 observing that the complaints were liable to be dismissed for want of evidence but the complainants might follow appropriate remedy before the Civil Court or under the provisions of Insecticides Act.

(2.) It was the complainant's case before the learned Forum that one of the representatives of the 1st opponent manufacturer of insecticides, weedicides and the like informed the complainants in the year 1996 that the weedicide Ronstar-25 E. C. would bring better results than other weedicides with the result that they used such weedicide after purchasing the same in the month of June-July, 1996. However, to their surprise they found more percentage of weeds having grown in the fields after the use of Ronstar-25 E. C. than the weeds grown in the past after the use of weedicide of other companies. According to them, the paddy crop was affected to the extent of 50%. They, therefore, prayed for compensation before the learned Forum.

(3.) Opponent No.3 was joined as the dealer of opponent Nos.1 and 2, Manufacturer of the weedicide.1st two opponents resisted the complaint inter alia on the ground that theirs was a reputed company in the field of Chemicals used in agriculture. Farmers are making use of weedicides of the 1st opponent company and they did not have any occasion to receive any complaint from any of the farmers. The weedicides manufactured by 1st opponent company came to be tested for its quality by many institutions. The weedicide in question was to be sprayed in proper proportion as per the instructions set out in the leaflet. Growing of weeds of different kinds would depend on number of causes including level of water, level of land, use of appropriate dose of weedicide and the like. They denied the allegation of fact that someone representing the company had given assurance to the complainants about the quality of the weedicide in question and its use. Opponent No.3 supporting the cause of the complainant had been in collusion with them and on account of the fact that the third opponent got the payment of the cheques given to the 1st two opponents stopped and on account of default on the part of the third opponent, the first two opponents were required to withdraw the goods worth Rs.33,000/- from the third opponent. The learned Forum has observed that the very conduct of opponent No.3 indicated that it inspired the complainants to file complaint against 1st two opponents in absence of evidence adduced by the complainants on all questions of facts namely purchase of weedicide in question, use thereof in accordance with the specification and the ultimate result of growing of weeds. Under such circumstances, the learned Forum had an occasion to call for the sample of weedicide purchased by the complainants for the purpose of the same being tested by Government approved laboratory and appropriate order in that respect was passed for the purpose of ascertaining the efficacy of the product which had been used by farmers who were before the learned Forum. Both the parties did not comply with the order and the product was not sent for testing as required under Sec.13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . Even then the learned Forum had an occasion to appreciate the evidence which was adduced before it and upon appreciation of the evidence it came to the conclusion that there was no material from which it could be ascertained whether the complainants purchased the alleged weedicide in packed containers and even if such purchase was established, whether the complainant used the same in accordance with the standards and specifications set out by the 1st two opponents. The learned Forum has in terms observed that the complainants' case on facts was not supported by any documentary evidence particularly when it appeared from the evidence that opponent No.3 was in collusion with the complainants' on account of his dispute with first two opponents in the matter of payment required to be made by the third opponent to first two opponents. The learned Forum, therefore, dismissed the complaint with the aforesaid observations.