Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/5/2019

Ram Chander - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Gill Agriculture Store - Opp.Party(s)

Pankaj Bansal

24 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.

                                   Sh.Rajbir Singh, President.                                                 Smt.Harisha Mehta and Sh.K.S.Nirania, Members

                                                        Complaint Case No.5 of 2019.                                                                   Date of Instt.: 01.01.2019.                                                                         Date of Decision: 24.04.2023.

Ram Chander son of Hans Raj resident of VPO Chabla Mori Majra Bigher, Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

                                                                            ...Complainant

                                      Versus

 

1. M/s Gill Agriculture Store, Bigher & District Fatehabad through its proprietor.
2. M/s R.D.Agro Chemicals India Limited, G-21, Industrial Area, Sikanderabad-203205 through its authorised  signatory/Manager Director.
3. RICON Agro Chemicals, B.O.27-IInd Additional Mandi Sirsa District Sirsa through its Manager/Authorised signatory (Manufactured pf Sjorasago pesticide)
4. M/s R.D.Agro Chemicals India Limited, Head Office  Flat No.D-503, Aditya Sconshoie, Izzat Nagar Kandapur Hyderabad through its authorised signatory.

                                                                                               ...Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

Present:                 Sh.Pankaj Bansal, Advocate for complainant.                                           Sh.Yogesh Gupta, Advocate for Op No.1.                                                   Sh.V.K.Mehta, Advocate for Ops No.2 & 3.                                                   Op No.4 has been given up on 28.03.2019. 

ORDER

Sh.Rajbir Singh, President

 

1.                          The facts pertaining to this complaint are that the complainant is in cultivating and exclusive possession of land measuring 32 kanal 0 marla and 12 kanal 0 marla which was taken on lease from Sharanjeet Singh and Gagandeep Singh sons of Gurbachan as mentioned in paragraph No.1 of the complaint; that he had sown 1637 paddy crop on the above said land; that Op No.1 carrying on the business of sale of seeds, insecticide and pesticide etc. ; that in order to get more yield the complainant had visited the Op No.1 and purchased  pesticide Ridon from Op No.1 having batch RAC 005 vide invoice No.370 dated 15.08.2018 for a sum of Rs.6600/-; that the pesticide in question is manufactured by Ops No.2 to 4; that while selling the pesticide, Op No.1 had claimed it to be of good quality pesticide and it would also save the crop from insect (disease) besides helping in  natural growth of crops; that the complainant sprayed the pesticide in the land in question as per the instructions of the Op No.1; that after some days of spraying the pesticide, the complainant noticed that all the standing crops in the field got destroyed  as the leaves and plants were also got burnt; that thereafter the complainant approached the Op No.1 and requested for making the loss good but it avoided the matter on one pretext or the other; that on the application of the complainant, official of the Agriculture Department visited the complainant and inspected the fields in his as well as in the presence of Op No.1; that the inspecting team in his report opined that the complainant has suffered a loss to the extent of 70 %; that on the application of the farmers for analysis of pesticide, the aforesaid pesticide was got analysed in the Quality Control Laboratory (Insecticide) State Agriculture Department, Haryana (Sirsa) and the pesticide in question was found misbranded with cartap Hydrochloridce 4%; that due to the above mentioned reasons, the complainant could not get the expected 24 quintal paddy crop from per acre and thus he has suffered a loss of Rs.2,55,750/- being value of 93 quintal @ Rs.2750/- per quintal; that the complainant requested the Ops many a times for giving compensation of the aforesaid loss but they refused to do so. In the end, a prayer has been made seeking compensation against the Ops to the extent of Rs.2,55,750/- with interest and costs, Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and humiliation and Rs.11,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

2.                          The averments of the complaint have been strongly opposed in the written statements filed on behalf of appearing Ops.

3.                          In the W.S. filed on behalf of Op No.1, it has been averred, inter-alia, that this complaint is false and frivolous; that  complicated questions of law are involved in the matter in dispute, therefore, this Hon’ble Commission cannot decide the same in summarily manner; that the complainant has concealed material facts from this Commission; that  the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has purchased the pesticide from it vide invoice No.370 dated 03.08.2018; that the complainant had visited Op No.1 and disclosed about damaging of crop due to spraying of pesticide in question; that the answering party lodged the complaint with Op No.2; that thereafter team of Agriculture Department had visited the firm and took the samples of above mentioned pesticide; that the samples were reported as fail. In the end, prayer was made for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.                          In the joint W.S. of Op Nos. 2 & 3, it has been averred inter -alia, that complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint; that the complaint has been filed by concealing the material facts; that the present complaint has been filed for monetary gain;  that the product was in the control and possession of complainant, therefore, there is presumption of adulteration and tempering with the same; that the present complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; that the present complaint is not maintainable; that no soil samples, affected crops samples have been collected and preserved and sent for analysis from appropriate laboratory; that the sample of same pesticide ridon (Cartp Hydrochloride- 4 % Gr.) was taken and the same was declared as permissible by the laboratory of Karnal dated 31.01.2019; that there is  no loss of crop  due to use of pesticide ridon; that the present complaint is collusive between the complainant and Op No.1 ; that in order to avoid the making of payment to the answering party, the Op No.1 has got filed the present complaint; that Op No.1 got tested the ridon pesticide from lab of Sirsa after getting the sample from open pesticide packing of 5 KG, which was not proper stored, therefore, the sample of ridon got declared as misbranded by the said lab; that  the complainant has not suffered any loss due to pesticide ridon; that since the use of pesticide is beyond the control of answering parties, therefore, they cannot be held liable as the product is question is known for its quality. In the end, prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made.

5.                          Both sides have filed their respective evidence on record. The complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit C1 and affidavit of Sharanjeet Singh Harbans Singh as Annexure C2 alongwith documents Annexure C2 to Annexure C11. On the other hand, the Op No.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh.Parkash Singh as Annexure RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure RW1/B to Annexure RW1/E. Learned counsel for the Ops No.2 & 3 has tendered joint affidavit of Sh.Naresh Kumar and Rajender Kumar as Annexure R1 alongwith documents Annexure R2 to Annexure R13. Evidence on behalf of respective evidence was closed thereafter.

6.                          Learned counsel for the complainant gave up Op No.4 being unnecessary on 28.03.2019.

 7.                         We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

8.                          Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the pesticide purchased from Op No.1 by the complainant, which was duly manufactured by Ops No.2 to 4, was found of inferior quality and due to its being of sub-standard and not of best quality, the standing crop of the complainant did not give the expected yield resulting into huge financial loss to the complainant.  In support of his contentions he drew the attention of this Commission towards the report of Government Laboratory, Sirsa (Annexure C5) wherein it has been mentioned that the active ingredient contents were 0.04% which were only 1.1 % i.e. 99 % less if we compare with Cartap Hydrochloride 4% (Annexure C4) as purported to be contained in the sample.

9.                          Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that when the crop did not grow as per his expectations, he lodged his complaint with the concerned department and thereafter, his land was inspected by the officials who in their joint report had assessed the probable loss upto 40-50 % to the farmer because the height of the plants was 1.5 to 2 feet and the pants were infested by stem borer and leaf roller.   In the end prayer for acceptance of the complaint has been made.

10.                        On the other hand learned counsel for the Op No.1 has argued that the Op No.1 is only a dealer and had sold the product in the same packet and manner which was received from manufacturer, therefore, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part and all the liability should be fastened upon the Ops No.2 to 4, in case the farmer gets less crop due to manufacturing of inferior and sub-standard quality of product/pesticide. In support of his contentions he relied upon the case law titled as Manager Jaika Automobiles Pvt. Lted. Versus Leela Sahu& Anr. 2017 (2) CPR 524 (NC)  and

 Classic Automobiles Versus Lila Nand Mishra & Anr. I (2010) CPJ 235 (NC).

11.                        Learned counsel for the Ops No.2 & 3 has argued that the Op No.1 had to pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- alongwith interest to the Ops No.2 & 3 and in order to avoid the said payment, the present complaint has been filed in connivance with the complainant. It has been further argued that the complainant and Op No.1 are hand in glove with each other and were able to manage the report of agriculture department, on which the complainant is relied upon, therefore, the said report cannot be relied upon for the just and proper decision of the controversy. He further argued that the report dated 10.08.2018 of the Agriculture Department cannot be relied upon even on the ground that the inspection was carried out much early as two months time was left for the crop to reach at maturity stage. In support of his contentions learned counsel for the Ops No.2 & 3 has relied upon the documents Annexure R2 to Annexure R13.

12.                        Learned counsel for the Ops No.2 & 3 further argued that the samples were found permissible and not misbranded, therefore, question of loss to the crop of complainant does not arise at all and he further gave stress on report of Government Laboratory, Karnal (Annexure R2) in order to strengthen his plea.

13.                        Perusal of the case file reveals that there are two inspection reports on the file and first one is of dated 10.08.2018 and second one is of dated 11.10.2018.        In the inspection report dated 10.08.2018, which was conducted on the application of the complainant, the Inspecting Committee has assessed the probable loss to the extent of 40-50% to the farmer and in the second inspection report dated 11.10.2018, which was conducted on the application/asking of Ops No.2 to 4, the Inspecting Committee has assessed the probable loss upto 15-20% to the farmer.

14.                        After perusing both the reports, one thing is very much clear that the pesticide allegedly manufactured by the Ops No.2 & 3 and sold by Op No.1 were of inferior quality and misbranded resulting into loss of crop. The difference in percentage of loss is due to the reason that the first inspection was carried out on 10.08.2018 when the crop was immature and far from maturity and second inspection was conducted on 11.10.2018 when the crop was about to mature.  Perusal of case file reveals that a group of farmers including the complainant had moved a joint application to the Agriculture Department for carrying out the inspection of their cultivated fields with regard to sub-standardness of the insecticides and consequential loss due to its application in their fields. Therefore, we have no hitch to believe on the later report dated 11.10.2018 which was made by the inspection committee on the application/asking of the Ops No.2 & 3 because the inspection was carried out when the crop was near to maturity and this report is very vital document to resolve the controversy in hand.

15.                        As far as other plea of learned counsel for the Ops No.2 & 3 with regard to pesticide was fit for use being in permissible limit is concerned, this plea is not tenable because the report from the O/O Analyist Quality Control Lab, Sirsa dated 29.08.2018 (Annexure C4) clearly states that the insecticide in question was misbranded with only 0.4 %  and the inspection report dated 11.10.2018, which was carried out in the presence of Ops and according to Annexure C4, sample was collected from Op No.1 from the same pesticides which was allegedly sold to the complainant by the Op No.1 are enough to conclude that the sample was misbranded and was not in permissible limit.  

16.                        Another strange factor which this Commission has noticed that the Ops have not placed on file any report showing that the insecticide was certified by any Government Laboratory before selling the same to any of the farmers or in the market. Perusal of the case file reveals that complainant was owner in cultivating possession of 32 kanal 0 marla and the complainant had purchased 20 packet of 5 KG each of insecticide of batch No.RAC005. The complainant has not placed any record on the case file to prove that he was also cultivating the land besides the land on which he was in exclusive possession being owner. The complainant has specifically mentioned in his complaint that he had used 7 ½ KG of above said insecticide in one acre. This fact clearly shows that the insecticide used by the complainant and the total land cultivated by the farmer are in-concurrence with the total purchased pesticide by the complainant from Op No.1.

17.                        Learned counsel for the Op No.1 has raised a plea that Op No.1 is only a dealer and being a dealer no liability can be fastened upon it, if the pesticide is found misbranded and not fit for use.  We are inconsonance with the plea taken by the learned counsel for the Op No.1 as for manufacturing defect, dealer cannot be held liable. The present case is squarely covered by the case laws relied upon by learned counsel for the Op No.1. Hence, keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, the present compliant deserves acceptance against Ops No.2 to 3 only.

18.                        Now coming to the point of compensation, the complainant has claimed that he has suffered a huge loss of Rs.2,55,750/- on not getting the excepted crop. In the year 2017-18 the government while insuring the paddy crop in the area of Fatehabad has assessed the sum assured of Rs.72,000/- per hectare which comes Rs.29150/- (in round figure) per acre. As per the report of Agriculture Department there would be loss of 15 % to 20 % yield to the complainant in 5.5 acres of land. Therefore, we presume the average loss up to 18 % to the complainant in 5.5 acres of land.

19.                        Taking into consideration, all the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we reached at a conclusion that if the complainant had been able to receive full amount of crop in one acre then he might have received Rs. 29150/-.  As per the inspection report, the complainant has suffered 15-20 % loss in one acre of paddy crop.  Accordingly, the OPs No.2 & 3 are directed to make a payment of Rs.28858/- (in round figure) (18% loss in 5.5 acres of land) alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum form the date of filing of complaint till its realization.  The Ops Nos. 2 & 3 are further directed to make a payment of Rs.11,000/- to the complainant as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and litigation charges. Complaint against Op No.1 stands dismissed. This order be complied with within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the rate of interest will be charged @ 9% per annum for the default period. As such we hold that the OPs Nos. 2 & 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid compensation.   Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record after due compliance.

20.                        In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. This order be also uploaded forthwith on website of this Commission, as per rules, for perusal of parties herein. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission.                                                            Dated: 24.04.2023

                                                                                               

      (K.S.Nirania)                     (Harisha Mehta)           (Rajbir Singh)                             Member                              Member                                        President