Haryana

StateCommission

A/1433/2017

GODREJ AGROVET LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

IQBAL AND OTHERS. - Opp.Party(s)

AJIT SINGH

22 Mar 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                      First Appeal No.1429 of 2017

                                                Date of Institution: 28.11.2017

                                                          Date of order: 22.03.2023

 

M/s KhetiSewa Centre, 28, Janta Bhawan road, Sirsa road, Haryana  125055 through its proprietor Sh.Mahavir Prasad.

…..Appellant

Versus

1. Iqbal Singh S/o Sh.Balbir Singh, R/o Village Sahuwala 1^st, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa, Haryana.
2. Godrej Agrovet Ltd., having  registered office at Pirojshanagar, Eastern Express Highway, Vikhroli (East), Mumbai and having Branch Office at SCF 6 & 7, 3^rd Floor, Phase 3 A, Sector 53, Mohali (Pubjab) through its Authorized person.
3. Nisan Chemical Ltd. Having its office at Dhanuka House, 861-862, Joshi Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110005 through its proprietor./Authorised person.
4. Cristal Crop Products Pvt. Ltd. Village and Post office Nathupur, Distt.Sonepat-131029, through its proprietor/Authorized person.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                   Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                  

Present:-    Mr.Yashdeep Nain, Advocate for theappellant.

                   Mr.Dheeraj Narula, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

                   Mr.A.S.Lamba,Advocate for the respondent No.2.

                   Respondent No.3 and 4 already ex parte

 

First Appeal No.1433 of 2017

Date of institution:28.11.2017

Date of order: 22.03.2023

 

Godrej Agrovet Ltd., having  registered office at Pirojshanagar, Eastern Express Highway, Vikhroli (East), Mumbai and having Branch Office at SCF 6 & 7, 3^rd Floor, Phase 3 A, Sector 53, Mohali (Punjab) through Rudraneel Bharadwaj S/o Sh.Neera Bharadwaj, Executive-Legal Authorized person, Godrej Agrovet Ltd.

…..Appellant

Versus

1. Iqbal Singh S/o Sh.Balbir Singh, R/o Village Sahuwala 1^st, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa, Haryana.
2. M/s KhetiSewa Centre, 28, Janta Bhawan road, Sirsa road, Haryana  125055 through its proprietor/Authorised person.
3. Nisan Chemical Ltd. Having its office at Dhanuka House, 861-862, Joshi Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110005 through its proprietor./Authorised person.
4. Cristal Crop Products Pvt. Ltd. Village and Post office Nathupur, Distt.Sonepat-131029, through its proprietor/Authorized person.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    S.P. Sood, Judicial  Member

                   Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                  

Present:-    Mr. A.S.Lamba, Advocate for theappellant.

                   Mr.Dheeraj Narula, Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Mr.Yashdeep Nain, Advocate for respondent No.2.

                   Respondent Nos.3 and 4 already ex parte.

 

F.A. No.642 of 2018

Date of Institution: 17.05.2018

Date of order: 22.03.2023

 

Iqbal Singh S/o Sh.Balbir Singh, R/o Village Sahuwala 1^st, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa, Haryana.

…..Appellant

Versus

1. M/s KhetiSewa Centre, 28, Janta Bhawan road, Sirsa road, Haryana  125055 through its proprietor/Authorised person.
2. Godrej Agrovet Ltd., having  registered office at Pirojshanagar, Eastern Express Highway, Vikhroli (East), Mumbai-400079, through its prop./Authorized person.
3. Nisan Chemical Ltd. Having its office at Dhanuka House, 861-862, Joshi Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110005 through its proprietor/Authorised person.
4. Cristal Crop Products Pvt. Ltd. Village and Post office Nathupur, Distt.Sonepat-131029, through its proprietor/Authorized person.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    S.P. Sood, Judicial  Member

                   Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                  

Present:-    Mr. Dheeraj Narula, Advocate for theappellant.

                   Mr.Yashdeep Nain, Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Mr.A.S.Lamba, Advocate for respondent No.2.

                   Respondent Nos.3 and 4 already ex parte.

 

                                                ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Vide this common order above mentioned three appeals bearing No.1429 of 2017, F.A. No.1433 of 2017and F.A. No.642 of 2018will be disposed of as these appeals have been preferred against the order dated 12.10.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa (in short ‘District Commission).

2.      There is a delay of 184 days in filing the appeal bearing No.642 of 2018.  Appellant has filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act (in short “Act”)  for condonation of delay of  184 days alleging interalia that he suffered a huge loss to his crops due to misbranded insecticide spray supplied by respondent No.1 which he had used on his crop sown in 14 acres of land. The delay in filing the present appeal was neither deliberate nor intentional but due to abovesaid reason.  Therefore this delay of 184 days in filing of the present appeal bearing No.642 of 2018 may please be condoned.

3.         Arguments Heard. File perused.

4.         Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that as per facts mentioned above, it is clear that delay in filing appeal was not intentional.    Further argued that appellant has suffered a huge loss to his crops due to misbranded insecticide supplied by respondent No.1 which he used in his 14 acres of land.  Due to the above said reasons, the appeal could not be filed immediately, so the delay may be condoned.  

5.         This argument is not available, as virtually no reason has been disclosed by the appellant.  As per the old Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a period of 30 days has been provided for filing an appeal against the order of the District Commission. The proviso therein permits the State Commission to entertain an appeal after the expiry of the period of 30 days if it is satisfied that there is “Sufficient cause” for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period. The expression of sufficient cause has not been defined in the Act rightly so, because it would vary from facts and circumstances of each case.

6.                         The inordinate delay of 184 days in appeal No.1263 of 2018 cannot be condoned in the light of the following judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

          The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held that;

“Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case-law has grown around S.5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his rights must explain every days delay.”

          The Hon’ble National Commission in case Government of U.T. Electricity Department & Others versus Ram Lubhai, II(2006) CPJ 104 has held that:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 –Appeal –Maintainability – Limitation –Condonation of delay– Resjudicata –Appeal filed after a delay of 44 days –Plea of procedural delay in getting approval for filing appeal – Appeal filed by complainant against order of District Forum decided and copy of order dispatched to parties prior to filing of appeal by opposite party –Appeal and application for condonation of delay dismissed –Matter once finally concluded by any Court cannot be reopened by same Court.”

                In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has   been observed:

         “We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.”

      In Ram Lal and Ors.  Vs.  RewaCoalfields  Ltd., AIR  1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed;

“It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.”

         

          Taking into consideration the pleas raised by appellant in the application for condonation of delay and settled principle of law, this Commission does not find it a fit case to condone delay of 184 days in filing of the appeal bearing No.642 of 2018. Hence applications filed for condonation of delay  in appeal No.642 of 2018 is dismissed.  

7.      The brief facts of the case are that the complainant and his sons are owner of the land and had sown Narma crop in his land measuring 14 acres.   On 08.05.2015, the complainant purchased seed of cotton crop from the firm namely Sirsa Beej company and some other shop keepers and after purchase of cotton seeds, the complainant sown the cotton seed as per the procedures The complainant properly irrigated the crops as per the requirement of the surface and environment as well as the need of germination of plants. When the flowers grown up on the plants of cotton crop, he approached toOP No.1 and put forth his requirement of pesticides for getting more productivity of the cotton crops fruits and the OP No.1 of his own supplied the pesticides duly mentioned in the bill NO.7062 dated 01.052015, bill NO.8002 dated 30.05.2015 and bill No.8431 dated 20.06.2015 for the price of Rs.6250/- Rs.5400/- and Rs.2950/- respectively.  Complainant used and sprayed the pesticides  as per the advice of OP No.1. Due to harmful effect of spray of pesticides, the crop of the complainant got damaged. Thereafter complainant moved an application before the Deputy Director, Agriculture Officer, Sirsa voicing the damage to his standing cotton crop on account of spray of inferior and adjulterated/misbranded pesticides supplied by OP No.1 and on this application, the quality control inspector and other officers inspected the field of complainant and submitted its report regarding upto 80% loss to the cotton crop of complainant. This is how complainant suffered a net loss of Rs.3,00,000/- approximately. He requested the OPs to pay the compensation, but to no avail. Thus there being deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, hence the complaint.

8.      Notice was issued to the Ops.  They filed separate replies.  It was alleged that  there was no defect in the pesticides and nothing has been pointed out in the complaint. The alleged inspection report prepared by the  officials of the Agriculture Department was not in accordance to the letter memo No.52-70/TA (SS) dated PKL the 03.01.2002, issued by the Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula to all the Deputy Directors of Agriculture in the State of Haryana. On merits, it was denied that OP supplied misbranded or defective pesticides to the complainant. The pesticides sold by OP was of high standard and quality.  Before inspection no notice was given to the OP.   Remaining contents of the complaint were also denied emphatically.

9.      OP No.2 in its written statement alleged that complainant has impleaded three Ops from whom complainant allegedly purchased the insecticide which were said to have been used by complainant so in the absence of a specific allegation against any of these three suppliers or the cause of loss of crop not being alleged against any specific OP, the present complaint was liable to be dismissed.  On merits, it was submitted that complainant failed to show that prior to his having used any insecticide, he had also purchased the proper quality of seeds for sowing the same in his 14 acres of land. The invoice of Sirsa Beej company bears a note to the effect that purchasers were  supposed and follow various steps to act in terms of the product brochures. Infact the complainant on his own sprayed the pesticides on the crop and due to this reason the crop was infected with the disease. A perusal of bill number 7062 would reveal that purchase vide the same had been made on 1 May 2015 and which was surprisingly even prior to the purchase of seeds, much less the sowing and the germination of the cotton seed. Even the other two invoices dated 30.05.2015 and 20.06.2015 were in a very close proximity of time and  it cannot even remotely be imagined that the same were purchased after the crop had started to flower and that too only as per the advice of OP No.1. The complainant has also not followed the  procedure while carrying out inspection. Infact complainant never intimated the answering OP about the inspection carried out by the officers. The report indicated that there had been some  malformation in the crop and even the health of the crop was bad to the extent ranging from 25% to 80% in the different fields of the complainant.  As such no such loss as alleged was suffered by him. Other averments made by the complainant were also denied and requested to dismiss the complaint.

10.    OP No.3 alleged that the complainant has no where stated in the complaint as to when the crops were sown by him. The product was used as pre emergence treatment within 15-27 days after sowing or transplant.  The OP DhanukaAgritech Ltd. Was also not liable for the improper use of the product without following the instructions religiously as contained in the leaflet attached to the product. The complainant has not even furnished the invoice of the product alleged to be purchased by him from OP No.1. The loss of yield in this case could also squarely be attributed to the faulty seeds and improper soil condition. The inspection report was prepared in the absence of the Ops  and without giving them prior notice.  Remaining allegations of complaint were also denied.

11.    OP No.4 filed separate written statement and contesting the complaint on similar lines as of other Ops.

12.    After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Sirsahas allowed the complaint vide order dated 12.10.2017, which is as under:-

“Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the  opposite parties to pay lump sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the opposite parties will be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the above said amount from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 16.12.2015 till actual payment. We also direct the Ops to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for harassment including litigation expenses. All the OPs are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order.”

13.    Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P Nos. 1, 2 and complainant-appellant in appeal No.642 of 2018have preferred these appeals.

14.    Arguments heard. With their kind assistance entire record of appeal as well as that of the District Commission including whatever evidence has been led on behalf of  all the parties hasalso been properly perused and examined.

15.     It is not disputed that the complainant has sown cotton crop in his land measuring 14 acres. It is also not disputed that the complainant purchased pesticides from the Ops (Ex.C-1 and C-2). 
The grievance pointed out by complainant was that due to inferior quality of pesticides his entire crop got damaged.  It is also admitted fact that upon complaint Ex.C-5 before Deputy Director Agriculture Officer, Sirsa, a committee was constituted comprising of Quality Control Inspector and other officers who all inspected the cotton crop of the complainant on 09.10.2015 and submitted the report  which revealed that there had been malformation in the crop and even the health of the crop had gone bad to the extent ranging from 25% to 80% in the different fields of the complainant. The possibility of damage to the crop because of some “weed contamination” and with regard to the pesticides due to which the complainant could not get proper yield of his crop.

16.    As per the matrix of the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that complainant had purchased seeds from O.P.No.1.  It is also not disputed that the above said seed were sown in his land. Since the seeds purchased by the complainant were not of good quality,  that is why there was poor germination of the crop due to sub standard pesticides.  The inspection report Annexure C-6 reveals that crop was bad to the extent ranging from 25% to 80% in the different fields of the complainant, therefore there was a fair possibility of damage to the crop because of some “weed contamination”.  The report issued by Agriculture department cannot be ignored.  The learned District Forum has adequately and properly compensated the complainant and directed the O.Ps. to pay Rs.1,00,000/- on account of loss suffered by the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% and Rs.15000/- as compensation including litigation charges. The case laws relied upon by the counsel for the appellant in appeal No.642 of 2018 of Hon’ble National Commission titled ShrihariLimrajKaranjkar Vs. Ajeet Seeds Limited 2021(1) CRP 80, National Horticulture Research Vs. Dnyaneshwar Bhausahed Jadav in revision Petition No.279 of 2018decided on 28.09.2018, Reliance Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Umesh Singh Chandan Singh Saddiwal and Anr. 2016(1) CLT 289, Dharam Pal and Sons and Ors. Vs. Som Parkash 2014(2) CPJ 703 and Om Prakash Vs. Marketing director Head office, Iffco and 3 ors. Law finder Doc Id#1940741 are relevant in the eyes  of law because the facts and circumstances of the cases are similar that of the present case. The learned District Commission has righty allowed the complaint of the complainant.

17.    Resultantly, the contentions raised on behalf of the present appellantsin all the cases stands rejected as rendered no assistance and found to be untenable and the order passed by the learned District Commission does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and is well reasoned and accordingly stands maintained for all intents and purposes.  Hence, appeals bearing No.1429 of 2017, F.A. No.1433 of 2017 and F.A. No.642 of 2018 stands dismissed on merits.

18.    The statutory amount of Rs.25000/- each deposited at the time of filing the appeal bearing No.1429 of 2017 and F.A. No.1433 of 2017 be refunded to the respondent No.1-complainant-
Iqbal Singh against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

19.              Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

20.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

21.              File be consigned to record room.

22.              The original judgement be attached with appeal No.1429 of 2017 and certified copy be attached with appeal No.1433 of 2017 and appeal No.642 of 2018.

 

22^thMarch, 2023       Suresh Chander Kaushik            S. P. Sood                                                                Member                                             Judicial Member    

S.K(Pvt. Secy.)