BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 228 of 2016
Date of Institution : 16.12.2015
Date of Decision : 12.10.2017
Iqbal Singh son of Shri Balbir Singh, resident of village Sahuwala Ist, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. M/s Kheti Sewa Centre, 28 Janta Bhawan Road, Sirsa-125055, through its Prop. / Authorized Person.
2. M/s Godrej Agrovet Ltd., Regd. Office: Pirojshanagar, Eastern Express Highway, Vikhroli East Mumbai- 400079, through its Prop./ Authorized Person.
3. Nisan Chemical Ltd., Office: Dhanuka House 861-862, Joshi Road, Karolbagh, New Delhi- 110005, through its Prop./ Authorized Person.
4. Cristal Crop Products & Pvt. Ltd., Village & Post Office Nathupur, District Sonepat- 131-029, through its Prop./ Authorized Person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA……………………….PRESIDENT
SMT. RAJNI GOYAT ……………….. MEMBER.
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. S.N. Grover , Advocate for complainant.
Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for opposite parties No.1,3 and 4.
Sh. P.K. Bagria, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
Case of complainant in brief is that complainant is an agriculturist by profession having his agricultural land situated in village Karamgarh, Tehsil and District Sirsa. The complainant has sown Narma crop in the land measuring 14 acres comprised in Square No.75 Killa No.2(8-0), 9(8-0), 10 (-712), 11(7-12), Sq. No.51 Killa No.17/2(0-6), Sq. No.75 Killa No.1(6-0), Sq. No. 65 Killa No.11/1/1(3-3), 11/1/2 (4-8), Sq. No.76 Killa No.12(7-7), 13(7-7), 18(8-0), 23(7-15), Sq. No.75 Killa No.11/1(5-0), 3/1(0-12), 3/2(7-8), 8(8-0), 15/2/1(1-3), 15/2/2(5-17), 12/1(5-13), Khewat No.48/49 Min, 56, 58, 530, 242, 548, 560, 483, 551 min, 550 vide jamabandi for the year 2011-12 and mutation No.3186 and he is owner of the above said land alongwith his sons. That on 8.5.2015, the complainant purchased the seed of cotton crop from the firm namely Sirsa Beej company and some other shop keepers and after purchase of the cotton seeds, the complainant sown the cotton seed in due course of procedure and under the guidelines issued by the suppliers of the seed. That even after sowing the cotton seeds in the said land, they gave proper care and properly irrigated the crops as per the requirement of the surface and environment as well as the need of germination of plants. It is further averred that when the flowers grown up on the plants of cotton crop, the complainant approached op 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 as duly mentioned in the bill No.7062 dated 1.5.2015, bill No.8002 dated 30.5.2015 and bill No.8431 dated 20.6.2015 for the price of Rs.6520, Rs.5400/- and Rs.2950/- respectively and also fully assured about the more productivity and very good outcome of the pesticides and also assured that in case of any complaint, he and the Manufacturer would make good the loss with immediate effect. Op no.1 also assured that said pesticides is manufactured by the companies whose product are duly passed/ approved by the ISI companies and central laboratories. It is further averred that complainant sprayed the pesticides as per the advice and guidelines of op no.1. That few days after the spray of pesticides, the complainant was astonished to see that all flowers/ leafs/ cotton bolls (tinda) which were on the standing crop vanished due to impact of spray of pesticides and the crop of the complainant suffered from the disease as the cotton leaf of the crop burnt and cotton flowers started falling down and thus whole crop of the complainant ruined/ damaged. The complainant immediately approached op no.1 but op no.1 did not pay any heed and openly refused to redress the grievance of complainant. That thereafter complainant moved an application before the Deputy Director Agriculture Officer, Sirsa regarding the damage to the standing cotton crop of complainant on account of spray of inferior and adulterated/ misbranded pesticides supplied by op no.1 and on this application of the complainant the Quality Control Inspector and other officers inspected the field of complainant and submitted the report regarding upto 80% loss to the cotton crop of complainant and as such the complainant has suffered the damages and undergone heavy pecuniary loss. As such in nutshell due to the supply of misbranded/ adulterated pesticides by op no.1, the complainant has suffered net loss of Rs.3,00,000/- approximately. That the ops were contacted time and again by complainant and were requested to make good the loss, but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Op no.1 filed reply taking certain preliminary objections regarding locus standi, cause of action, suppression of material facts, estoppal; jurisdiction and that complaint is not maintainable in the present form as no defect in the pesticides is proved in the complaint. The alleged inspection report prepared by the officials of the Agriculture Department is not in accordance to the letter memo No.52-70/TA(SS) dated PKL the 3.1.2002, issued by the Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula to all the Deputy Directors of Agriculture in the State of Haryana and that no consumer dispute is made out between the parties. On merits, it is submitted that it is denied that answering op supplied the pesticides to the complainant of its own rather the answering op sold and supplied the pesticides on the specific requirement of complainant. The pesticides sold by answering op was of high standard and quality and answering op sold the properly packed and sealed container of the pesticides to the complainant in same condition in which the same was received by it from its manufacturer. It is further submitted that answering op has no knowledge and notice of alleged spot inspection of the field of complainant by the officers of the Agriculture Department, because no notice was ever given to the answering op about alleged spot inspection. However, a sample of the pesticides in question was taken by the officers of the Agriculture Department for its analysis from the approved Govt. Laboratory and as per report of the laboratory, the sample has been found to be within the prescribed limits and no defect in the pesticides has been found by the laboratory. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
3. Op no.2 filed reply taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability; locus standi; complainant is not a consumer; territorial jurisdiction; non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties and suppression of material facts and that complainant has failed to show the reason for the alleged loss to the crop and in the absence of which the complainant cannot be allowed to proceed further in the case simply on the basis of vague allegations. Even otherwise, the complainant has impleaded three ops whose products are said to have been used by complainant and in the absence of a specific allegation against either of the three or the cause of loss of crop being alleged against any specific op, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with special costs under Section 26 of the Act. On merits, it is submitted that complainant has failed to show that he had in fact purchased the required quality of seeds for 14 acres of land. The invoice of Sirsa Beej company has a note to the effect that purchasers are to act upon in terms of the product brochures. The contents of complaint with regard to the flowering of crop and approaching op no.1 and putting forth requirement of pesticides for getting more productivity of the cotton crop appear to be wrong, incorrect and are thus denied. The falsity of the averments comes forth from the fact that complainant as per his own saying had been seeking pesticides and which are not growth promoters as the complainant desires to state but are rather a means to deal with the attack of pests on the crop and thus it is apparent that the crop of complainant had been infested with the disease and which fact apparently has been concealed by the complainant. A perusal of the bill number 7062 would reveal that the purchase vide the same had been made on 1 May 2015 and which is surprisingly even prior to the purchase of the seeds, much less the sowing and the germination of the cotton seed. Even the other two invoices dated 30th May 2015 and 20th June, 2015 are in a very close proximity of time and it cannot be even remotely imagined that the same had been purchased after the crop had started to flower and that too on the advice of op no.1. The complainant has made up the entire story only to hide certain acts with regard to the health of the crop which apparently was deteriorating with each passing day and the blame of which has been now tried to be shifted upon the ops. It is further submitted that complainant has not followed the procedure while inspection allegedly being done by the said officers on his behest. Further the complainant has never intimated the present answering op about the inspection carried out by the said officers and any inspection done without the presence of the representatives of answering op cannot be treated to be done in an impartial manner, hence claim based on the same cannot be accepted. Further it is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has twisted the facts and has tried to misled the Forum by adding his own words in regard to the alleged report and the finding therein by stating that there was 80% loss in the crop and which is happened due to supply of adulterated/ misbranded pesticides as supplied by op no.1. Even a perusal of the report would indicate that there had been 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. The report as being relied upon by the complainant speaks of possibility of damage to the crop because of some “weed contamination” and with regard to the pesticides, the samples had been taken and subsequent to the taking of the samples, the tests have been performed in the government designated labs and there has been found to be no misbranded or adulterated pesticide. The contents of the para with regard to the loss suffered by complainant are wrong, incorrect and are denied and there is nothing to support the case of the complainant and even the calculations are non realistic and are deliberately shown on a very higher side and there has been no such loss as alleged. The alleged application for inspection of the fields has been given on 18th August, 2015 (2 months after the purchase of the last lot of pesticides) and the report of the inspection is of 9th October, 2015. That dates of the relevant bills, the application and the inspection is sufficient in themselves to show that the complainant has only concocted the entire story. The answering op has sold huge quantities of the product in question all over India and there has been no complaint whatsoever from anybody regarding its usage and quality issues. Remaining contents of complaint have also been denied.
4. Op no.3 in its separate reply submitted that complainant has not averred in the complaint as to when the crops were sown by him. It is pertinent to mention that the application of the pesticide and its efficiency depends on various factors including the time of sowing, because as per the brochure of the product, the impugned product is a selective herbicide for control of grassy weeds in cotton crops. The impugned product is used as pre-emergence treatment within 15-27 days after sowing or transplant. The op Dhanuka Agritech Ltd. is also not liable for the improper usage of the product without following the instructions as contained in the leaflet attached to the product and is also not liable for any instructions issued or given by the dealer or any other person not so authorized by it as complainant has himself stated in his complaint that he used the herbicide as per the instruction of the dealer and not as per the recommendation of it. It is further submitted that complainant has also not furnished the invoice of the product alleged to be purchased by him from op no.1. Thus, in the absence of the same and various other essential requirements such as the manufacturing date, expiry date and batch no., the allegation of the complainant regarding deficient product are ill founded, baseless and cannot be verified scientifically and thus liable to be discarded. It is further submitted that complainant has not given any description of the nature and quality of the seeds purchased and sown by him and in the absence of the same the defects cannot be solely attributed to the alleged impugned product. crops of complainant might have been infested by parasitic invasion for which appropriate precaution was not undertaken by complainant. The loss of yield in the present case can also be attributed to the faulty seeds and improper soil condition. It is further submitted that report prepared in the absence of the ops without giving them notice cannot be relied upon. Remaining contents of complaint have also been denied.
5. Opposite party no.4 filed separate reply contesting the present complaint on similar preliminary objections and on similar lines as of other ops.
6. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, bills Ex.C1 to Ex.C3, bill of Sirsa Beej company Ex.C4, copy of application Ex.C5, copy of forwarding letter alongwith copy of inspection report and copy of statement of complainant Ex.C6, copy of jamabandi for the year2011-2012 Ex.C7, bills Ex.C8, Ex.C9, electricity bills Ex.C10, Ex.C11. On the other hand, ops produced affidavits Ex.RW1/A. Ex.RW1/B, Ex.RW1/C and Ex.RW1/D and copies of lab. test reports Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and copy of letter dated 3.1.2002 Ex.R4.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
8. The complainant in order to prove his case has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and has also placed on file above said documents as Ex.C1 to Ex.C11. From the bills of opposite party no.1 Ex.C1 to Ex.C3, it is evident that complainant purchased pesticides from op no.1 on 30.5.2015 for an amount of Rs.5400/-, on 1.5.2015 for an amount of Rs.6520/- and on 20.6.2015 for an amount of Rs.2950/-. The complainant has also placed on file copy of inspection report dated 9.10.2015 conducted by inspecting team of Agriculture Department, Sirsa according to which there was loss of about 70% to 80% in three acres four kanal land, 30% to 40% in six acres four kanals land and 25% to 30% loss in remaining four acres of land which was due to spray of pesticides and it was appearing that the damage was due to contamination of some pesticide. It is also mentioned in the report that the sample of the pesticide which was used by the farmer was obtained and was sent to the laboratory for test. So from the inspection report of the inspecting team of Agriculture Department, Sirsa, it is proved on record that damage to the cotton crop of the complainant occurred after the spray of the pesticides purchased from opposite party no.1.
9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have contended that samples sent to the laboratories have been found permissible vide reports Ex.R1 to R3 and therefore, it cannot be said that there was defect in the pesticides. Whereas it has been contended by learned counsel for complainant and complainant himself who was present on the spot at the time of taking the samples by the concerned team that samples sent to the laboratory were not from same lot and were taken from the shop of some other shopkeepers near the shop of opposite party no.1 afterwards. The opposite parties have not denied this fact. From the reports Ex.R1 to Ex.R3, it is evident that samples of pesticides in question were taken on 28.8.2015 i.e. after the inspection of the field of complainant on 19.8.2015, so, it cannot be concluded that the pesticides given to the complainant were of good quality and branded one as the sample was not taken from the same lot.
10. In so far as plea of the opposite parties that no notice was served upon them before inspection of the field of the complainant by inspection team, in this regard no fault on the complainant can be attributed and as such there is no substance in the plea of the opposite parties in this regard. Moreover, the field of the complainant has been inspected by the Government officers of Agriculture department as per complaint registered on C.M. Window and on instructions of Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa.
11. The complainant has been able to prove his case that he suffered losses of his crop due to inferior quality of pesticides purchased from opposite party no.1. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for complainant has also placed on file news item published in newspaper Sirsa Kesari dated 25.8.2015 which also confirms the damages to the crop of the complainant. The authorities cited by learned counsel for ops in case titled as Prerna Vs. Seed Works India Pvt. Ltd. & anr. 2016 (4) CLT 507 (NC) and Kuber Agro Corporation & others vs. Gurmeet Singh & others, 2017 (2) CLT 247 are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
12. Now, on the point of ascertaining damages, parties have led no evidence to prove actual damages to the crop. Though the complainant has alleged loss of approximately Rs.3,00,000/- but has not placed on file anything in this regard. He has also not mentioned the rates of crop at the relevant time. So, we are of the considered opinion that a lump sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to be awarded to the complainant would be just and proper amount for the loss to the complainant.
13. 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. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. Member Member President,
Dated:12.10.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
