BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 86 of 2019                                                                 

                                                        Date of Institution         :   14.02.2019

                                                          Date of Decision   :    08.01.2020

Shayam Sunder son of Shri Moman Ram, resident of village Dudianwali, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                      ……Complainant.

                                      Versus.

1. M/s Kissan Beej Bhandar Shop No. 56-57, Janta Bhawan Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

2. Syngenta India Limited, Unit No. 405, D-11, Sothern Park, District Centre Saket, New Delhi- 110017.

3. Deputy Director, Agriculture Department, Sirsa.

  ...…Opposite parties.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SH.R.L. AHUJA ……………………..PRESIDENT

          SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………….MEMBER

Present:       Sh. B.S. Gill, Advocate for complainant.

Opposite party no.1 exparte.

Sh. Ajay Saini, Advocate for opposite party No.2.

                   Sh. Mukesh Kumar, Clerk on behalf of opposite party no.3.

ORDER

                   Case of the complainant, in brief is that the complainant is poor farmer having small scale of land in village Dudianwali comprised in khewat no.509 khatuni no.594 and besides his own land, he also takes land of others for cultivation on contract basis in order to earn his livelihood and to maintain his family. That complainant has sown seed of wheat crop in the said land measuring six acres owned by his father by engaging labourers. It is further averred that on 29.12.2017, the complainant approached the op no.1 for purchase of pesticides in order to save the crop from the effect of “Guli Danda/ extra grasses grown in the wheat crop and to save from the attack of insects etc. That op no.1 supplied total 16 packets of pesticides namely Topic 12 packets and Algrip four packets bearing batch No.1096 and 805 for a sum of Rs.3340/- vide bill No.1364 dated 29.12.2017. It is further averred that complainant sprayed the pesticides and also sprayed the dry power after missing the water therein and also sprayed pesticides supplied by op no.1 with due care and caution and as per directions of op nio.1. That after few days of spray of pesticides, the complainant was mentally shocked to see that pesticides did not remove gulli danda in the field of complainant and he has suffered loss of crop and this has occurred only due to inferior and misbranded quality and duplicate pesticides supplied by op no.1. That complainant immediately approached to op no.1 alongwith respectable persons of the area and op no.1 assured to redress the grievance of complainant but thereafter he completely failed to do so. It is further averred that thereafter complainant also moved an application to the Deputy Director Agriculture, Sirsa upon which officers of agriculture department paid inspected the field of complainant and assessed the loss of 20% of wheat crop to the complainant while the fact remains that complainant has actually suffered loss up to 50% of wheat crop. That due to supply of inferior and duplicate seed, the complainant has suffered financial loss of Rs.1,08,000/- in his six acres of land and complainant requested the oops to make good his loss, but they did not pay any heed to the genuine claim of complainant. The complainant also got served a legal notice upon the ops but to no effect rather they have refused to admit the claim of complainant. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite party no.1 did not appear before the Forum and was proceeded against exparte.

3.                Opposite party no.2 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that herbicide named Topik is manufactured by op no.2 which is a selective post-emerge herbicide which is recommended for the control of important grass weeds. Op no.2 takes extreme care in ensuring that product manufactured or produced, processed and packed by op no.2 completely meet the prescribed standards and specifications as prescribed by the law before releasing in the market. The complainant has not placed on record batch number of the concerned product allegedly purchased and used by him. However, op no.2 is submitting quality test report of the product having the same batch number which was sold by them in that particular area. It is further submitted that expected results from the herbicide does not only depend on quality of the solution but the stage of weeds at the time herbicide is applied, agronomy practices adopted, protocol prescribed and followed and stage of weeds, process of application/ spray of weedicide and quantity of herbicide per acre used in the field plays important role in expected results from the weedicide. Moreover, the yield from crop is dependent upon several other factors like cultivation practices, proper/ adequate soil and its preparatory tillage before planting climate conditions during germination etc. It is well acknowledged fact that the repeated use of any pesticide or herbicide with same mode of action could lead to selection of resistant weed. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that product supplied by op no.2 was inferior or sub standard and that had resulted in poor yield from the crop. It is further submitted that complainant failed to use the recommended dosage of the weedicide on his crops. The complainant has sprayed an incorrect dose of the herbicide. Moreover, the herbicide has to be applied through knapsack sprayer fitted with flat fan nozzle and the minimum water volume to be used is 375 liters per hectare. It is further submitted that complainant has also prayed another product namely Algrip and there is always a possibility that complainant has used both the products in combination. Mixing of any other chemical is not at all recommended and that may have also resulted in undesired results. The complainant has failed to produce any scientific document to substantiate his allegations that product manufactured by op no.2 was of inferior quality and the cause of damage to the crops was due to poor quality of weedicide. The complainant has submitted field inspection report of Agriculture Officer to substantiate his allegations, which is not a valid report and is totally arbitrary and based on personal observation of the officers who visited the spot. Agriculture officer has not carried out any scientific analysis in order to reach to the conclusion of the report. It is further submitted that report is against the principle of natural justice and against the instructions as no notice or intimation has been given to the op no.2 regarding the inspection conducted by Agriculture Officer. Agriculture Officer has no where stated in his report that said herbicide produced by op no.2 was of poor quality and the report no where revealed that the herbicide “Topik” is of inferior or sub standard quality. It is further submitted that Agriculture Officer has not mentioned about the soil condition, availability of water, agronomic climate, fertilizer used, method used by complainant for application of herbicide and other facts that are important to establish the liability of crop failure. It is further submitted that complainant claims that 50% of crop was damaged due to herbicide, whereas the report states that 15-20% damage was caused due to weedicide. It is further submitted that product in issue being a herbicide only is recommended for the control of weeds and not for extra-greening or any other purpose as is clearly mentioned in the product. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.   

4.                Op no.3 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that on the application of complainant, the officers/ officials of Agriculture Department visited the field of complainant. The complainant was required to bring the revenue record of his land and also to bring the village Patwari, so that his land may be identified at the spot, but he neither produced the copy of revenue record nor brought the village Patwari. The complainant was also required to intimate the shop keeper from whom he had purchased the seeds about the visit by the officers of the Department, but the complainant neither intimated the shop keeper nor brother him at the spot. So, the officers/ officials inspected the field at the spot, which was shown by complainant and made a report about the existing position at the spot. However, the answering op cannot say that field inspected at the spot actually belonged to the complainant. At the spot, weed was found in the field shown by complainant and as per existing position at the spot, it was assessed by the officers who visited the spot that there may be 15-20% loss to the crop of wheat. A sample of the insecticide was also taken from the shop of M/s Kissan Beej Kendra, Janta Bhawan Road, Sirsa and was sent to the laboratory for analysis. With these averments, dismissal of complaint prayed for.

5.                The parties then led their respective evidence.

6.                We have heard learned counsel for complainant and learned counsel for op no.2 as well as representative on behalf of op no.3 and have gone through the record carefully.

7.                Learned counsel for complainant has contended that it is proved case of complainant that on 29.12.2017 complainant had purchased pesticides in order to sprinkle the same on his wheat crop in which there was guli danda/ extra grasses. It is further proved on record that even after spray of this pesticide, there was no positive result and the guli danda remained there. This fact also finds corroboration from the report of officers of Agriculture department who visited at the spot. It is further proved on record that pesticide supplied by op no.1 manufactured by op no.2 was of poor quality, defective and was not up to standard. Sample of spray was also taken by officers of the agriculture department and was sent to the laboratory. The complainant has also suffered great loss and is entitled for compensation for the loss of his crop as prayed for.

8.                On the other hand, learned counsel for op no.2 filed written arguments in which they have submitted that herbicide named Topik is manufactured by op no.2 which is a selective post-emerge herbicide which is recommended for the control of important grass weeds. Op no.2 takes extreme care in ensuring that product manufactured or produced, processed and packed by op no.2 completely meet the prescribed standards and specifications as prescribed by the law before releasing in the market. The complainant has not placed on record batch number of the concerned product allegedly purchased and used by him. However, op no.2 is submitting quality test report of the product having the same batch number which was sold by them in that particular area. It has been further submitted that expected results from the herbicide does not only depend on quality of the solution but the stage of weeds at the time herbicide is applied, agronomy practices adopted, protocol prescribed and followed and stage of weeds, process of application/ spray of weedicide and quantity of herbicide per acre used in the field plays important role in expected results from the weedicide. Moreover, the yield from crop is dependent upon several other factors like cultivation practices, proper/ adequate soil and its preparatory tillage before planting climate conditions during germination etc. It has been further submitted that it is well acknowledged fact that the repeated use of any pesticide or herbicide with same mode of action could lead to selection of resistant weed. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that product supplied by op no.2 was inferior or sub standard and that had resulted in poor yield from the crop. It has been further submitted that complainant failed to use the recommended dosage of the weedicide on his crops. The complainant has sprayed an incorrect dose of the herbicide. Moreover, the herbicide has to be applied through knapsack sprayer fitted with flat fan nozzle and the minimum water volume to be used is 375 liters per hectare. It has been further submitted that complainant has also prayed another product namely Algrip and there is always a possibility that complainant has used both the products in combination. Mixing of any other chemical is not at all recommended and that may have also resulted in undesired results. The complainant has failed to produce any scientific document to substantiate his allegations that product manufactured by op no.2 was of inferior quality and the cause of damage to the crops was due to poor quality of weedicide. The complainant has submitted field inspection report of Agriculture Officer to substantiate his allegations, which is not a valid report and is totally arbitrary and based on personal observation of the officers who visited the spot. Agriculture officer has not carried out any scientific analysis in order to reach to the conclusion of the report. It has been further submitted that report is against the principle of natural justice and against the instructions as no notice or intimation has been given to the op no.2 regarding the inspection conducted by Agriculture Officer. Agriculture Officer has no where stated in his report that said herbicide produced by op no.2 was of poor quality and the report no where revealed that the herbicide “Topik” is of inferior or sub standard quality. It has been further submitted that Agriculture Officer has not mentioned about the soil condition, availability of water, agronomic climate, fertilizer used, method used by complainant for application of herbicide and other facts that are important to establish the liability of crop failure. It has been further submitted that complainant claims that 50% of crop was damaged due to herbicide, whereas the report states that 15-20% damage was caused due to weedicide. It has been further submitted that product in issue being a herbicide only is recommended for the control of weeds and not for extra-greening or any other purpose as is clearly mentioned in the product. Learned counsel for op no.2 has also relied upon judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd. vs. Ishwarbhai Baburao Thakare and ors. RP No.4319 of 2012 decided on 5.1.2016, Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-op. Ltd. vs. Ram Swaroop, RP No.1295 of 2014 decided on 26.11.2014 and also judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Haryana Seeds Development Corp. Ltd. vs. Sadhu and anr. CA No.1308 of 2005 decided on 18.2.2005.

9.                It has been argued on behalf of opposite party no.3 that there are no allegations against op no.3 and there is no deficiency of service on their part and as such complaint against op no.3 is liable to be dismissed.

10.              We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the record.

11.              The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has deposed and reiterated the averments made in the complaint. He has also furnished affidavit of Kamlesh Kumar as Ex.CW2/A, bill Ex.C1, copy of letter Ex.C2, copy of inspection report Ex.C3,  copy of jamabandi Ex.C4, copy of legal notice Ex.C5, postal receipt Ex.C6, adhar card Ex.C7 and photographs Ex.C8 to Ex.C10. On the other hand, op no.2 has furnished affidavit of Sh. Nikhil Nikam as Ex.R1, copy of report Ex.R-1A and Ex.R-II. OP no.3 produced affidavit of Sh. Babu Lal, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa as Ex.RW1/B.

12.              Admittedly, the complainant had purchased herbicide from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.3340/- vide bill No.1364 dated 29.12.2017. As per his allegations he used the same on his wheat crop in which there was extra grasses of guli danda. Further there are allegations that this spray was not effective and extra grass ‘guli danda’ continued to grow in the field of the complainant. Further there are allegations that complainant informed the ops and also informed the agriculture department, officers of which visited the spot and made their report Ex.C3. The perusal of report Ex.C3 reveals that on 3.1.2018 herbicide was sprayed in the field but on 17.2.2018 it was found that extra grass was not burnt and was in existence as it is and due to non burning of extra grass, there was possibility of 15-20% loss to the wheat crop of farmer. The sample of the herbicide was also taken from the shop keeper and was sent to the laboratory.  But the officers of agriculture department have not concluded their report with the observation that loss has been suffered by complainant to the extent of 15 to 20%. The report of analysis has also not been placed on record. Further more, no notice of inspection was given to the ops no.1 and 2 as per instructions of Agriculture Department, Haryana given in Memo No.52-70 dated 3.1.2002 and no killa or khasra number has been mentioned in the report which was allegedly inspected by the officers of the agriculture department. So it appears that complainant has failed to prove that herbicide purchased by complainant from op no.1 and manufactured by op no.2 was mis branded or sub standard or defective nor this fact has been reported by officers of agriculture department in their report Ex.Ex.C3.

13.              In view of our above discussion, complainant has failed to prove his allegations in the complaint by leading cogent and convincing evidence and therefore, present complaint is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. 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                President,

Dated:08.1.2020.                                                 District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Sirsa.