Registered Consumer Complaint Case No. 31 of 2022, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission issued notice upon HP Singh stockist in Plant production Chemical, Agri Implement, Horticulture tools and seed located at Keishampat Leimajam Leikai Imphal returnable by 19 September 2022
TFM Desk
Paddy farmers use various chemical pesticides for controlling a wide variety of insects, preventing the growth of moulds and mildew and the spread of bacteria. Many times, they find these chemicals ineffective. They are compelled to use various chemical pesticides to abate crop damages. They end up blaming their fate when over-the-counter pesticides turn out to be a fake one and their hard labour and money got wasted. They have little knowledge that they can approach the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
However, a 54-year-old farmer has approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sangaiprou, Imphal West seeking refund of pesticide cost of Rs 180, a compensation of Rs 2 lakh and legal expenses of Rs 50,000.
Registered Consumer Complaint Case No. 31 of 2022, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission issued notice upon HP Singh stockist in Plant production Chemical, Agri Implement, Horticulture tools and seed located at Keishampat Leimajam Leikai Imphal returnable by 19 September 2022.
The matter is listed on 19 September 2022 for further hearing.
As per his complaint, farmer Leiphrakpam Ranjit Singh, son of L. Ibotombi Singh, of Moidangpok Khunou Awang Leikai, P.O. Langjing & P.S. Patsoi, Imphal West District purchased a pesticide namely Val-Premium on 7 July 2022 from HP Singh stockist for his paddy field as the paddy plants are infected.
He alleged that while applying the Val Premium to the infected paddy plants the infection was not cured. Being unsatisfied with the action of Val-Premium, he enquired about any other pesticide to cure the infections to his paddy plants. He got another pesticide namely Val-Xtra from M/S Eastern Agro and Chemical, Uripok Panchi Maning Imphal and got the best result after applying it, he said.
He alleged that the Val- Premium is a fake one which unauthorisedly used the patent right of Val- Xtra in order to attract the confidence and trust of the farmers.
After hearing the submission made by Chinglen, the counsel for the complainant and also perusal of the documents on records, the commission observed that there are reasonable grounds for admitting this case for adjudication under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.