- (1.) 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 complaint was baseless and false thus prayed for dismissal of the same. 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.;