BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.
Complaint no.266/2017.
Date of instt.10.10.2017.
Date of Decision:27.09.2019.
Mahender son of Ranjit, resident of village Kani Kheri, Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad.
..Complainant.
Versus
- M/s Kisan Sewa Centre Sector 57, Anaj Mandi Bhuna, Tehsil and District Fatehabad through its Proprietor/Partner.
- Bayer Crop Science Limited Registered Office Buyer House c/o BCS Hisar Fourth Mill Bapu Aasaram, Hisar.
- Firm M/s Ramjas Mal Telu Ram C183, ZASL, Karnal.
..Respondents/OPs.
Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.
Sh. Jasvinder Singh, Member.
Argued by: Sh. P.S. Malhotra, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. M.L. Garg, Advocate for OP no. 1.
Sh. Yogesh Gupta, Advocate for OP no. 2.
OP no. 3 already exparte.
ORDER
The present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter to be referred as OPs) with the averments that he is a resident of village Kani Kheri, District Fatehabad and is in owner and possession of agriculture land situated in the abovesaid village. It is further submitted that he had sown cotton crop on 14.5.2017 in one and a half acres of land and after sowing the seed the complainant had given water to the crop properly.
2. It is further submitted that on 18.7.2017 for spraying the insecticide on the Narma (cotton) crop the complainant approached OP no. 1. Upon this, OP no. 1 told that he has Regent and Monosaan variety of insecticide for spraying on the cotton crop. It was also assured by the OP no. 1 that on spraying the abovesaid insecticide the crop will not be affected by any disease/pests and the crop will give a good yield. On the assurance of the OP no. 1 the complainant purchased 500 miligram of Regent insecticide and one litre Monosaan from the complainant. Upon asking, the bill by the complainant from the OP no. 1 it was told by OP no. 1 that he is not having a bill book and later on the bill will be handed over to him. Thereafter, on 20.7.2017 the complainant sprayed the abovesaid insecticide on the cotton crop in one and a half acres of land. It is further submitted that after spraying the insecticide it was noticed by the complainant that the pesticide/insecticide had a very adverse affect on the crop. Thereafter, the bill of the insecticide was handed over by the OP no. 1 to the complainant on 31.7.2017.
3. It is further submitted that thereafter the complainant submitted a complaint with the officials of Agriculture Department at Fatehabad and upon this on 8.8.2017 the crop of the complainant was inspected by a team of experts of the Agriculture Department. During inspection, it was observed by the team of experts that the crop had grown upto 3.5 feet and there was 2 to 3 Tinda on each plant and it was also observed by the team of experts that the loss to the extent of 60 to 70% is expected in the crop and the loss has been caused on account of adverse effect of the insecticide sprayed on the crop. It is further submitted that on account of adulterated insecticide supplied by the OP no. 1 the complainant has suffered a loss of about Rs.76,500/-. The abovesaid act on the part of OP no. 1 amounts to deficiency on the part of Ops in rendering service to the complainant. The complainant has further prayed that the Ops may be directed for making a payment of Rs.76,500/- to the complainant alongwith interest and compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. Hence, the present complaint.
4. Upon notice, the OP no. 1 appeared through its counsel and resisted the complaint by filing a written statement wherein various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties, locus standi, cause of action, estoppel and concealment of true and correct facts etc., have been raised.
5. In reply on merits, it is submitted that on 18.7.2017 no pesticide or insecticide was purchased by the complainant from OP no. 1 whereas on 31.7.2017 the insecticide Regent and Monosaan was sold to the complainant by OP no. 1 on his asking. It is also denied that the insecticide purchased by the complainant from answering OP was sprayed on the cotton crop on 20.7.2017 as the abovesaid insecticide was purchased on 31.7.2017. Therefore, the question of spraying of the same on 20.7.2017 does not arise. It has also been denied that the answering OP had refused for handing over the bill of insecticide purchased by him. It is also denied that the cotton crop was adversely affected by the insecticide sold by the answering OP to the complainant. All the allegations leveled against OP no. 1 have been specifically denied and it has been further submitted that the present complaint is without any merits and as such the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. The OP no. 2 also resisted the complaint by filing a written statement wherein various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, jurisdiction, and concealment of true and correct facts etc., have been raised.
7. In reply on merits, it is submitted that the complainant has not placed on record the copy of Jamabandi and copy of Khasra Girdawari to prove that he is owner in possession of the land in question and he has sown the BT cotton in village Kani Kheri, District Fatehabad. It is also denied that the complainant had sprayed the Regent insecticide on 18.7.2017 as the abovesaid insecticide was purchased by the complainant on 31.7.2017 and as such the spraying of the same on 18.7.2017 does not arise. Therefore, a false and fabricated story has been manufactured by the complainant . The entire story narrated by the complainant to the Agriculture Department is also false and fabricated. It is also submitted that the mixture of 2 chemicals i.e. Regent and Monosan might have affected the yield of the crop. It is further submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of the OP no. 2 in rendering service to the complainant and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
8. Despite proper service, the OP no. 3 did not appear before this Forum and as such he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 17.1.2019.
9. The counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence the affidavit of the complainant as Exhibit PW1/A and the documents Exhibit P-1 and Exhibit P-2 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP no. 1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Kailash Chander Proprietor as Annexure RW1/A and the documents as Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-7. The learned counsel for the OP no. 2 tendered in evidence documents Annexure OP2/A, Annexure OP2/1, Annexure OP2/2, Annexure OP2/4 and Annexure OP2/5 and closed its evidence.
10. The learned counsel for the complainant in his arguments contended that the adulterated insecticide was sold by the Ops to the complainant and on account of the same the cotton crop sold by the complainant in one and a half acres of land was adversely effected. On account of the same, the complainant has suffered financial loss, mental agony and physical harassment. The learned counsel for the complainant in support of his contention has also relied upon the inspection report dated 8.8.2017 (Exhibit P-2) submitted by the experts of the Agriculture Department.
11. The learned counsel for OP no. 2 vehemently rebutted the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the complainant and further contended that the insecticide sold to the complainant by the Ops was not suffering from any defect or deficiency and the same was certified one. It is also further contended that the insecticide in question was purchased by the complainant on 31.7.2017 and as such spraying of the same on the cotton crop on 18.7.2017 as alleged by the complainant does not arise. The complainant has cooked a false story to grab money from the Ops. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the complainant in support of his case has not produced any report of the laboratory to prove that the insecticide in question was adulterated one. The inspection report of the Agriculture Department is not an authentic proof to establish that the insecticide in question was adulterated and on account of the same the loss has been caused to the cotton crop of the complainant. In absence of the report of any appropriate laboratory it cannot be established that insecticide in question was defective or deficient. Moreover, no notice was given by the team of experts of the Agriculture Department prior to the inspection of the field of the complainant wherein the cotton crop in question was sown. The learned counsel for Ops in support of their case have relied upon the judgment titled as Jaswinder Singh Vs. Punjab Pesticides and cited as RCR (Civil) Page 721 (National Commission), the judgment titled as Devender Kumar Vs. Amsons Lab Private Limited and cited as RCR (Civil) Page 450 (National Commission), the judgment titled as Hindustan Insecticides Vs. Kopolu Sambasiva Rao and cited as RCR (Civil) Page 494 (National Commission) and the judgment Indo American Hybrid Seeds Vs. Vijay Kumar Shankarrao decided by the Hon’ble National Commission on 19.9.2005 and Amarjeet and company Vs. Shiv Charan cited as RCR (Civil) Page 860 Haryana State Commission.
12. We have duly considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents placed on record. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased insecticides i.e. 500 mililitre Regent and one litre Monosaan from OP no. 1 on 18.7.2017 for spraying the same in his cotton crop sown in one and a half acres of land. It is further the case of the complainant that the insecticides sold by the OP no. 1 to the complainant was adulterated/of inferior quality and as such the same had adversely affected the cotton crop of the complainant. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit as Exhibit PW1/A wherein the averments made in the complaint have been affirmed. The complainant also placed on record the invoice dated 31.7.2017 to establish that the insecticide in question was purchased by him from OP no. 1 by making a payment of Rs.981/-. The complainant has also placed on record the inspection report of the experts of Agriculture Department Annexure P-2 to establish that the cotton crop in question was damaged due to spraying of the insecticide purchased from the OP no. 1.
13. After considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and examining the inspection report Exhibit P-2 and other documents placed on record, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has been able to prove that adulterated/inferior insecticide was sold to him by the Ops and on account of the same the cotton crop sown in one and a half acre of agriculture land was damaged. Vide the inspection report (Exhibit P-2) the team of experts has opined that on account of adverse effect of insecticide mall formation (Bandar Panja) has occurred on the cotton plants. It has also been further opined by the team of experts that loss to the extent of 60 to 70% is expected in the crop. In view of the abovesaid report of the team of experts, we are of the considered opinion that adulterated insecticide has been sold to the complainant by the Ops and on account of the same the cotton crop in question has been damaged. On the other hand, the Ops has not produced the report of any independent or authorized/appropriate laboratory to prove that the insecticide sold to the complainant by the Ops was certified/free from defects or adulteration.
14. The contention of the Ops that the complainant has not mentioned the batch number of the product namely, Regent alleged to have been purchased by him nor has mentioned the date of manufacturing or date of expiry of the product nor has annexed the copy of the invoice and on account of the same the Ops are unable to get the same tested from the approved laboratory, is not tenable as the copy of the invoice dated 31.7.2017 Exhibit P-1 has been placed by the complainant on the record of the present case. A perusal of the Exhibit P-1 would show that the batch number and expiry date of both the insecticides have been mentioned. The contention of the Ops that the compliance of Section 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act has not been made by complainant to establish that the insecticide in question was adulterated. No doubt the complainant did not apply for sending the sample of the purchased seed to the laboratory for test as required under Section 13 (1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act. Usually a farmer purchases the quantity of seeds, insecticide or herbicide which is required by him for sowing or spraying in his fields, it is not expected from a farmer to conserve certain quantity of seed for getting the same tested in the lab to comply with the abovesaid provisions. Hence, no adverse inference can be drawn against the complainant on this ground. Holding these views we have relied upon the observations of the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission contained in a case titled as National Seeds Corporation Vs. M.Madhusudan Reddy, 2004 (2) CLT 301 wherein it has been held by Hon’ble National Commission that a farmer is not expected to conserve certain portion of seed to meet the ludicrous expectation of the petitioner to produce some seeds from somewhere to get it tested to meet the requirements of Section 13 (1) (c) of the Act.
15. We also do not find any merit in the contention of the Ops that the team of scientist of the Agriculture Department did not issue any notice to the Ops before inspection of the field of the complainant. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention here that in case the team of the scientist has not followed due procedure in that eventuality the farmer cannot be held liable. Moreover, the team of scientist have given a very clear opinion that the cotton crop has suffered damage on account of insecticide. The opinion of the scientist of the Agriculture Department cannot be discarded on the ground of technicalities. Moreover, the team of experts had no enmity with the Ops.
16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has been able to prove deficiency on the part of Ops no. 2 & 3 being manufacturer of the insecticide in question.
17. Now the question arises as to what amount of compensation should be awarded to the complainant. It is a matter of common knowledge that one acre of agriculture land give a yield of 10 quintals of cotton in this area. In the relevant year the rate of cotton was about Rs.5,000/- per quintal. Therefore, one and a half acre of agriculture land can give a yield of Rs.75,000/-. As per the inspection report Exhibit P-2, the farmer has suffered a loss to the extent of 60 to 70%. Keeping in view 60% loss the OP no. 2 and 3 are liable for making a payment of Rs.45,000/- (60% of Rs.75,000/-) on account of loss suffered by the complainant.
18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present complaint is allowed against OP no. 2 & 3 and OP no. 2 & 3 are directed for making a payment of Rs.45,000/- to the complainant. The Ops no. 2 & 3 are further directed for making a payment of Rs.5,000/- as compensation and litigation charges to the complainant. The present order be complied with within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the present order, otherwise the abovesaid amount shall carry an interest at the rate of 8% per annum for the default period. Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 27.09.2019.
(Jasvinder Singh) (Raghbir Singh)
Member President
