BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 375 of 2022
Date of Institution : 01.06.2022
Date of Decision : 30.08.2024
Davinder Singh (aged about 37 years) son of S. Malkiat Singh, resident of village Suchan, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Gupta Agro Agencies, Shop No. 111-B, New Anaj Mandi, Sirsa PEST. License No. 337, Seed License No. 1277 through its Proprietor/ Authorized Signatory. Mobile No. 99921-11560.
2. Total Manufactured by UPL Limited, Regd. Office: 3-11, G.I.D.C. VAPI- 396195, Gujarat through its Proprietor/ Partner/ Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory.
3. Golf Herbicide (400-ML SARIJ2G058) manufactured by Sygenta India Ltd. Regd. Address: Amar Paradigm, Shop No. 110/11/3, Baner Road, Pune- 411045 Maharashtra- India through Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory.
4. Golf Herbicide marketed by Indofil Industries Limited, Regd. Office Kalpataru Square, 4th Floor, Kondivita Road, Mumbai- 400059 – Maharashtra through its authorized signatory.
..…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
BEFORE: SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR……….. PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………………… MEMBER
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA……………..MEMBER
Present: Sh. Ravinder Kamboj, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Sh. Ajay Saini, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
Sh. Parnav Bagria, Advocate for opposite party no.4.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant and his family are owners in possession of agricultural land situated at village Suchan, Tehsil and District Sirsa and they are cultivating the said land at their own. That during Rabi season of 2021-2022, the complainant had sown wheat crop in the entire land and for protecting the crop from unwanted grass weeds like Phalaris Minor (Guli Danda) etc., the complainant visited the shop of op no.1 and asked about the spray having good quality for protecting wheat crop from diseases and then after knowing the previous history of land of complainant, the op no.1 convincingly recommended the complainant to apply “Total” (16 GMS) pesticide manufactured by op no.2 and “Golf” pesticide manufactured by op no.3 and marketed by op no.4. It was assured to him by op no.1 that aforesaid both pesticides are having good quality and are renowned in the sphere of pesticides and both completely control unwanted grass, weeds etc. in wheat crop and are also helpful in healthy production of the wheat crop and thus both are having good result as compared to other pesticides sprays of other companies. It is further averred that it was also assured by op no.1 that if it does not give good result and wheat crop is affected by any grass weeds etc., then they will refund the entire amount of pesticides charged from complainant and compensation on account of loss in agricultural produce will be awarded to him. That upon such assurances of op no.1 on behalf of ops no.2 to 4 complainant had purchased both pesticides manufactured by ops no.2 and 3 on 20.12.2021 i.e. “Total” pesticide (five pieces) amounting to Rs.2120/- vide invoice no. 3255 dated 20.12.2021 and “Golf” pesticide (three pieces) amounting to Rs.1950/- vide invoice no. 3553 dated 27.01.2022 and “Golf” pesticide (four pieces) amounting to Rs.2600/- vide invoice no. 3484 dated 18.01.2022 and said amounts were paid by complainant to op no.1 in cash. It is further averred that thereafter complainant applied the above said pesticides on his wheat crop as per instructions given by op no.1, but despite that said pesticides did not control crop diseases like Phalaris Minor (Guli Danda) etc. and it badly affected the wheat crop of complainant. That then complainant moved an application dated 29.03.2022 to the Deputy Director of Agriculture Sirsa for inspection of the damaged crop due to growth of Phalaris Minor (Guli Danda) and other wastages on which field of complainant was inspected by Subject Special, Sirsa on 05.04.2022 and it was found that crop of 10 acres of land was affected up to 60-70% from much growth of Phalaris Minor and other wastages and apart from it, crop of other two acres of land was affected by Phalaris Minor and other wastage to the extent of 40-50%. It is further averred that complainant sustained losses of Rs.4,00,000/- approximately on account of damage to his crop sown in 12 acres of land as well as loss on account of non production of straw for the cattle of complainant due to inferior quality of pesticides of the ops and as such ops have caused deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and unnecessary harassment to the complainant. The complainant approached to the ops and requested them to pay compensation of above said amount but the ops kept on lingering the matter on one false pretext or the other and now about a week ago, the ops have refused to admit his claim. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written version raising certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi, cause of action, suppression of true and material facts and estoppal etc. It is submitted that complaint is not maintainable in the present form as no defect in the pesticides is proved. The field of complainant was never inspected by the officers of the agriculture department and there is no report of any officer of the agriculture department about the nature, kind and extent of alleged damages to the crops of the complainant. Even the complainant did not get his field inspected from the expert of the manufacturing companies of the pesticides in question, therefore, it cannot be attributed that the crops of complainant were damaged due to use of the pesticides in question. It is also submitted that no consumer dispute is made out between the parties, so present complaint does not lie before this Commission and this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint and complaint is false and frivolous and as such answering op is entitled to special costs/ damages from complainant as provided under the law. On merits, it is submitted that complainant has not furnished the detail of the land owned and possessed by him. No Khewat/ Khatuni, Sq/ Kill number etc. of the land has been given by complainant. The complainant had come to the shop of answering op and had asked for specific brand and specific insecticide for his crop. The answering op did not recommend any insecticide to him. It is further submitted that insecticides manufactured by ops no.2 to 4 are of high standard and quality and ops no.2 to 4 enjoy high respect and reputation in the general public for the products manufactured by them. The answering op had sold the duly packed and sealed packets of the insecticides to the complainant in which it had received from the distributor of manufacturing company and complainant was also fully satisfied about the packing and sealing of these pesticides containers. It is further submitted that broacher contains the composition of the insecticides, how to use it and its effect are placed in the packing of the insecticides by the manufacturing company. The complainant at no point of time reported any alleged damage to his crops. The answering op has no knowledge and notice of any alleged inspection and he was not joined in the alleged inspection of field of complainant. It is further submitted that copy of alleged inspection report has also not been supplied to him, so he is unable to make any comment on the same. The insecticides purchased by complainant from op no.1 have not been declared misbranded by any approved laboratory. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Op no.2 also filed written version raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that it is not proved or established that the alleged product of op no.1 has been sprayed in the fields of complainant. It may be possible that alleged damage of crops was due to use of other company spray or any other reason and after damage of crops, complainant made a plan to purchase the product of op no.2 to grab the amount of damages. So, the op no.2 specifically submits that the product of op no.2 was not used by complainant. The product of op no.2 are totally safe the damages of crops is not possible, so the damages of crops are not related to use of product of op no.2. It is further submitted that aforesaid product has been put to various tests before applying for certification and only upon successful testing the products gets license for marketing and sale and product has been successfully used by thousands of farmers across the country. That complainant has not produced any report from any independent Govt. body to corroborate the reasons for the losses, if any and product of op no.2 was not used and the damages of crop is not the reason of spraying of product of op no.2. On merits, the pleas of preliminary objections are reiterated, contents of complaint are denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 made.
5. Op no.3 also filed written version raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that the Pinoxaden 5.1% EC if used as per the recommendations mentioned in the label and leaflet attached with the product controls grasses particularly. The complainant has not used the product as per the recommendations mentioned on the leaflet as complainant has also admitted that he has used the products as per recommendations of op no.1. It is further submitted that complainant had purchased two different herbicides as per his own admission and possibility cannot be ruled out that complainant might have mixed two different herbicides and sprayed the mixture on his wheat crop. That mixture of two or more chemicals may result into unknown solution which may not be good for crop health, hence op no.3 has no liability towards the complainant if the said product is not used as per the instructions mentioned on the label and leaflet. Therefore, it is evident that complainant is trying to fetch money from op no.3 for his own mistakes and thereby making all fake and baseless claims against them to give substance to his false stories and thus present complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that complainant has failed to produce any scientific document to substantiate his allegations that the herbicides supplied by op no.3 was of inferior quality and the cause of damage to the crops was due to the substandard quality of the product. The complainant has submitted an impugned field inspection report of agricultural officer to substantiate his allegations but said report no where states that the herbicides produced by op no.3 is of poor quality and that resulted in loss of crop. The report is totally arbitrary and based on the personal observation of the officers who visited the field of complainant. Agriculture Officer has not carried out any scientific analysis in order to reach to the conclusion of the report, therefore, complainant is not eligible to claim any relief from this Commission based on this impugned report. It is further submitted that alleged report itself is not legal and thus not maintainable as alleged inspection has been done in contravention of the circular of Director of Agriculture, Haryana dated 03.01.2022 and no notice has been given to op no.3 regarding the inspection and said report no where commented upon the quality of the herbicides or the fact that alleged loss of crop had occurred due to quality of herbicide produced by op no.3. The complainant has miserably failed to prove defect in product. It is further submitted that complainant might have mixed the herbicide “Golf” with other herbicide/ insecticides which is also evident from the inspection report and hence the complainant is trying to take illegal benefit of his own wrong. On merits, the pleas of preliminary objections are reiterated, contents of complaint are denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.3 made.
6. OP no.4 also filed written version raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that there has been no reference to the age of the wheat crop or even of the alleged weed and therefore mere recital that spray had been conducted on the instructions of op no.1 cannot allowed the complainant to make or maintain a claim against the ops. The efficacy of the marketed product of the op in question is based on its usage directions as prescribed on the label and leaflet of the said product and on the methods of use, crops, dosage, periodicity etc. as per its label claim. The complainant has failed to mention the mode and manner of using the said herbicides etc. and even the quantity/ dosage of the same have not been disclosed and in absence whereof, the answering op cannot be held liable. The complainant had failed miserably to even disclose the date of usage of alleged product. It is further submitted that report and inspection, if any on the basis of which report has been prepared is not in the specific knowledge of answering op nor same has been done in the presence of answering op. It is further submitted that answering op adheres to strict quality control measures and there has been no supply of non genuine pesticides/ insecticides as alleged by complainant. The product being marketed and sold by answering op is a result of scientific research and development, the efficacy and beneficial usage of the product can be ensured only if the same is used according to the “directions to use” prescribed by the answering op and not otherwise. It is further submitted that answering op has sold huge quantities of the product in question from the same batch all over India and there has been no complaint whatsoever from anybody regarding its usage and quality issues. Even otherwise, the op no.4 secures product from company which adheres to the strictest of quality control process and the said product also confirmed to the quality standards. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
7. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C16 and photographs Ex. C17 to Ex.C21 and sample of seed of Phalaris Minor Ex.C22.
8. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Dharamvir Gupta, Proprietor as Ex. RW1/A and copy of letter dated 03.01.2002 Ex. R1/1. OP no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Jai Prakash Bhakar Zonal Marketing manager as Ex. OPW2/A. Op no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Nikhil Nikam, authorized representative as Ex.RW4/A and certificate of analysis Ex.RW3/B. OP no.4 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Regional Manager as Ex. RW4/A.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file. We have also gone through the written arguments filed on behalf of op no.3 which are almost repetition of its written version. Learned counsel for op no.3 has also relied upon decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission in cases titled as Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd. Versus Ishwarbhai Baburao Thakare and Ors. RP No. 4319 of 2012 decided on 05.01.2016, Indo American Hybrid Seeds and anr. Versus Vijayakumar Shankarao and anr. II (2007) CPJ 148 (NC), Banta Ram Versus Jai Bharat Beej Company and PHI Seeds Ltd. RP No. 506 of 2013 decided on 17.05.2013, Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-op. Ltd. Vs. Ram Swaroop RP No. 1295 of 2014 decided on 26.11.2014 and also decision of the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in case titled as Mithan lal etc. Versus M/s Ramditta Mal Des Raj etc. FA No. 1253 of 2015 decided on 27.12.2016.
10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is evident that complainant has placed on file copy of inspection report conducted by two Officers of the Agriculture department as Ex.C7 in which it is mentioned that inspection of the field of complainant was conducted on 05.04.2022 and the complainant stated that he sprayed the pesticide namely “Total” on his five acres of land and pesticide namely “Golf” on his seven acres of land but there was no control over the unwanted weeds i.e. “Gulli Danda” and “Jangli Palak” even after spray of above said two pesticides. It is mentioned in the said inspection report Ex.C7 that effect of above said unwanted weeds on 10 acres of land was found to the extent of 60% to 70% and effect of said unwanted weeds on remaining 02 acres of land was found to the extent of 40% to 50% due to which there is possibility of loss of yield of wheat crop to the farmer. The complainant has also placed on file bills of the pesticides as Ex.C8 to Ex.C10 and photographs of the crops and unwanted weeds. The perusal of the inspection report Ex.C7 reveals that there is no mention that any of the representatives of the ops were joined at the time of inspection of the field of complainant. There is nothing on file to prove the fact that before inspection of the field of complainant, any prior notice for inspection was given to the representatives of the ops. So, it cannot be said that any notice was served upon ops before inspection of the fields of complainant and as such inspection of fields of complainants was done behind their back. Further more, as per letter dated 03.01.2002 of the Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula written to all the Deputy Directors of Agriculture in the Haryana State, it has been directed that fields of complainant farmers will be inspected by a committee comprising two officers of Agriculture Department, one representative of concerned seed agency and Scientists of KGK/ KVK/ HAU but in the present case, the inspection was conducted by two Officers i.e. Subject Specialist and there is nothing to prove that any Scientist of above said institution was also joined in the inspection team. As such there is violation of the letter dated 03.01.2002 of the Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula written to all the Deputy Directors of Agriculture in the Haryana State. In this regard Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-op. Ltd. Vs. Ram Swaroop RP No. 1295 of 2014 decided on 26.11.2014 has held that “ At the time of inspection, complainant should have asked the inspecting team to intimate op as well as Scientist for carrying out inspection and as inspection has not been done by the duly constituted Committee, no reliance can be placed on this inspection report and no deficiency can be attributed on the part of petitioner.” Even in the report which itself is defective, it is no where mentioned that reason of loss of crop was only due to supply of substandard pesticides by the ops and that product was of substandard quality. Further more, from the bills Ex.C8 to Ex.C10, it is evident that besides above said two pesticides, the complainant also purchased some other brand sprays from op no.1 and as such it can be easily said that besides above said two pesticides the complainant also used other brand sprays in his fields, therefore, the version of the ops that mixture of two or more chemicals may result into formation of harmful substance which may subsequently lead to loss of crop has substance. There is also nothing on file to prove the fact that complainant used the products as per prescribed instructions and recommendation of the ops. Further more, the allegation made by complainant is based only on visual inspection and conjecture and there is no material on record to show that samples of pesticides were ever sent to any laboratory for any scientific testing whereas manufacturers of the products have marketed the products in question after proper analysis and scientific research. Moreover, pesticides were not examined in the lab to prove that the same were defective one. In this regard reliance can also be placed on the observations of the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in case titled as Mithan Lal etc. Versus M/s Ramditta Mal Des Raj etc. FA No. 1253 of 2015 decided on 27.12.2016. Further more, complainant has not proved on record that what was the actual yield of wheat crop after its harvesting. He has not placed any yield record of the said wheat crop on file and as such it cannot be said that what was actual loss of wheat crop to him. Moreover, good germination and good yield depends upon so many factors like quality of land, quality of water, source of irrigation and weather conditions. So, the complainant has failed to prove his case that above said pesticides of ops were of inferior quality.
11. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced : Member Member President,
Dated: 30.08.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
