BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR
Complaint No. ..167 of 2010.
Date of institution: .2.3.2010
Date of decision: 4.12.2015.
Narender Kumar son of Sh. Gian Parkash, resident of Village Bahadurpur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. ...Complainant
Versus
- M/s Luxmi Beej Kender, Purani Subzi Mandi Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.
- M/s Sumitomo Chemical India Pvt. Ltd. 165/166-B, Phase-V I.D.A. Jeedimetla, Qutubullapur (N)\, R.R. District Hyderabad0500055 (A.P), through its Managing Director.
- M/s Kisan Khad Store, 481-L, Model Town, near Sahni Hospital, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. Phone No. 98120-54849, 93152-52410.
....Opposite parties.
BEFORE: SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,
SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Duni Chand Chaudhary, Advocate, counsel for complainant.
Sh. M.C.Gupta, Advocate, counsel for OPs.
ORDER
1. Complainant Narender Kumar has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that respondents ( hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to make the payment of sale consideration and also to pay Rs. 30,000/- and also to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- on account of expenses and loss of crop and Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of mental agony, physical harassment with litigation expenses.
2. Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged in the complaint, are that the complainant purchased five packets of herbicides from OP No.1 baring Batch No. BHSC 2016, Manufacturing date 25.8.2008 and expiry date 24.8.2010 at the rate of 325/- per packet totaling Rs. 1625/- and two packets of 8 grams each weed grip bearing batch No.11 at the rate of Rs. 50/- each vide bill No. 12515 dated 9.12.2009 ( Annexure C-1). Thereafter, the complainant sprayed the abovesaid herbicides as per instruction of Op No.1 in his five (5) acres of wheat land and after that also followed all the instructions of the OPs but utter surprise of the complainant, the herbicides even did not give 1% result, on which complainant immediately approached to OP No.1 but OP No.1 told the complainant to wait for some time and assured again that the same will give 100% result. Even after waiting for considerable time, when no result came out and finding no other way, the complainant moved an application to the SDO Agriculture, upon which the Agriculture Development Officer visited the spot with his inspecting team and found that there was 0% result of Sumitomo Leader herbicide and prepared his report ( Annexure C-2). The complainant spent huge amount of Rs. 30,000/- in totaling on sowing of 5 acres of wheat crop but the complainant could not get any result. As such, he has also suffered loss on account of crop also. The complainant requested the OPs several times to pay the compensation but all in vain. Hence, this complaint.
3. Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their written statement separately. OP No. filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands, mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and on merit it has been submitted that Op No.1 is the retailer of M/s Kisan Khad Store, Model town, Yamuna Nagar which has not been made party to the present complaint. It has been further submitted that complainant might have not used the item in his field, which were purchased by him from the OP No.1. Moreover, instructions printed on the packet would have not been followed by the complainant. Furthermore, the variation in the conditions of crop and other facts including high salt concentration, brackish, water, moisture content and soil physical condition and other facts can effect the result of the pesticides. It has been further mentioned that other farmers, who have purchased the same quality pesticides from Op No.1 have not even made a single complaint regarding any loss of their crop which clearly shows the malafide and dishonest intention of the complainant against the OPs. The complainant never approached the OP No.1 nor OP No.1 ever received any complaint from the complainant. All the allegations have been falsely leveled just to black mail and abstract the money from the OP No.1. It is also denied that any official of the Agriculture Department has visited the spot, as no notice whatsoever was given to OP No.1 in this regard. Lastly stated that the OP No.1 has sold the pesticides/ herbicides, as per supplied by Kisan Khad Store, Yamuna Nagar and manufactured by OP No.2 and there is no unfair trade practice as the OP No.1 has sold good quality of herbicides. Hence prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. OP No.2 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, report of inspecting team is not sustainable in the eye of law as the said team prior to inspection of the land neither has given any notice to OP No.1 or 2 nor any inspection has been carried out in the presence of OPs. The complainant is stopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct., the complainant has not produced the sample before this Forum for getting it analyzed in the terms of requirement of section 13(1)(c ) of the Consumer Protection Act and on merit it has been admitted that OP No.2 is manufacturer of product/ herbicides in question. It has been further mentioned that complainant has not used the said herbicide as per instructions printed on outer cover of the packet and in the report of inspecting team no killa number or khasra number of the land, which was inspected by the team has been mentioned. It has been further mentioned that product/ herbicide in question has been recommended by the Haryana Agriculture University, Hisar being a good quality. The complainant has not mentioned in the complaint with regard to ratio/ quality of mixture of herbicide and quantity of water sprinkled on his wheat crop to obtain good result and lastly it has been mentioned that OP No.2 company i.e. Sumitomo Chemicl India Pvt. Ltd. is a reputed Multi National Company and has supplied the said herbicide of the same batch in a huge number of quantity but no complaint has been received from any corner. Lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.
5. OP No.3 also filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections and on merit on the same line as taken by OPs No.1 & 2 and prayed for dismissal of complaint against him also.
6. To prove the case, counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX, Affidavit of Laxmi Chand son of Nathi Ram, village Bahadurpur as Annexure CY and documents such as Photo copy of bill dated 9.12.2009 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of inspection report as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of caution printed on the box as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of ration card as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of receipt dated 17.6.2009 issue by Sarpacnh Gram Panchayat Bahadurpur as Annexure C-5, Photo copy of jamabandi for the year 2011-2012 as Annexure C-6, Photo copy of Girdawari as Annexure C-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.
7. On the other hand, counsel for OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Chaman Lal Sethi Prop. Luxmi Beej Bhandar as Annexure RW1/A and documents such as Photo copy of invoice dated 17.11.2009 as Annexure R.1, Photo copy of certificate issued by Sumitomo Chemical India Pvt. Ltd. as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of certificate of Analysis as Annexure R-3, Photo copy of certificate of analysis alongwith report as Annexure R-4 & R-5, Photo copy of power of attorney as Annexure R-6, Photo copy of invoice of Kisan Khad Store as Annexure R-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.
9. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased 5 packets of herbicide and 2 packets of weed grip of amounting to Rs. 1625/- from Op No.1 vide bill No.12515 dated 9.12.2009 (Annexure C1). Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that when he not get any result of the herbicides after spraying it in his 5 acres of field of wheat crop then he moved an application to the SDO Agriculture for inspection of the said field. The three officials of the office of Agriculture Department inspected the field of the complainant on 1.2.2010 and prepared a report (Annexure C-2) and the officials of the Agriculture Department mentioned in their report that Herbicides in question has no effect in the field of the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that due to the supply of sub standard herbicides the complainant has suffered a monetary loss and prayed for compensation as alleged above and referred the case law titled as Kalagond Dhulgonda Patil Versus Maharashtra State Seeds Corporation & Others, 1(2012) CPJ page 160 (NC) and also referred another case law titled as India Seed House vs. Ramjilal Sharma & Another, III (2008) page 96 ( N.C.). and another case law referred as South Eastern Seeds Corporation Versus R. Shekhar @ Sridhar 2008(1) CLT Page 600 National Commission.
10. Learned counsel for the OPs argued that complainant is only relying upon the report of official of the agriculture (Annexure C-2) but this report is nothing and have no evidently value in the eyes of law as no notice was ever given either to the manufacturer OP No.2 or to OPs No.1 & 3 before inspecting the filed of the complainant. There is also a mandatory provision under section 13(1) (c ) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 but the complainant has not followed the said provision. Even no khasra number or killa number have been mentioned in the report by the inspecting team and it cannot be stated as to which field the inspection report pertains as the field of the complainant has not been identified from any revenue authority. Learned counsel for the OPs further draw our attention towards certificate of Analysis report (Annexure R-3 and R-4) in which the product in question has been shown as standard quality and having full active ingredients. Lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint and referred the case law titled as Narender Kumar vs. M/s Arora Trading Company and others, 2007(2) CLT page 683 wherein it has been mentioned that Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 13(1)(c )- Procedure-Wheat crop- Pesticides- Herbicides- Loss of wheat crop- Killa numbers and Khasra Numbers of land which was inspected by Agriculture Development Officer has not been mentioned in the report. Thus the report does not pin point the identity of the land of the complainant- For that reason this report cannot be taken into account to support the stand of the complainant- The complainant failed to adduce any evidence on record to establish that he had used adequate quality of herbicide per the instructions- At no stage the complainant had produced the sample before the District Forum for getting it analyzed in terms of the requirements of Section 13(1)(c ) of the Act- District Forum held fully justified in dismissing the complaint.
11. Further the learned counsel for the OPs referred the case law titled as Anand Singh Versus Khurana Seed Store and Another, 2007 (1) CPC page 95 passed by our own Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula and also referred the case law titled as Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. Versus Kopolu Sambasiva Rao and others 2006 (1) CLT page 223 and Risiga Agro ( India ) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Lakhveer Singh & Others, 2011(2) CLT Page 27.
12. It is not disputed that complainant had purchased 5 packets of herbicide and 2 packets of weed grip of amounting to Rs. 1625/- from Op No.1 vide bill No.12515 dated 9.12.2009 (Annexure C1) manufactured by OP No. 2.
13. The contention of the complainant is that the herbicides in question were of inferior quality and that was not giving any result and to prove his contention he placed the report of Agriculture Department Annexure C-2.
14. Before reaching to any conclusion, it is much necessary to examine the report Annexure C-2 minutely. From the perusal of this report (Annexure C-2), it is clear that field of complainant has been inspected by three agriculture officers, whereas as per guidelines/instructions issued by Director of Agriculture, Agriculture Department Panchkula, vide memo No. 52-70 dated 3.1.2002 TA/SS, for spot inspection there should be three officers out of this two officers from Agriculture Department and one from Krishi Vigyan Kender KGK/HAU and one member of the concerned seed agency but in this case neither any scientist from Krishi Vigyan Kender nor any representative from concerned seed company has been associated at the time of inspection of the field. Even no respectable person like Sarpacnh, Panch or Lumberdar has been joined by the inspecting team at the time of inspection of the field. Besides it, the said report is also not authenticate because the alleged inspection has been made by the officials of the Agriculture Department without getting the land identified from any official of the revenue department prior to spot inspection as no Killa Number or Khasra number has been mentioned in the report and as such it cannot be said with certainty as to which field the inspection report in question pertains. The same view has been held in case titled as Shamsher Singh Vs. Bagri Beej Bhandar, IV (2013) CPJ page 186 National Commission, it has been held that Agriculture-Defective Seed-Growth of crop not satisfactory-Loss suffered-alleged deficiency in service-District Forum allowed the complaint- State Commission accepted appeal and dismissed the complaint- Hence revision- When there is complaint by the farmers regarding quality of seed, inspection committee has to be constituted comprising two officials of the Agriculture Department, one representative of the concerned seed agency and scientist of Krishi Vigyan Kender- Said inspection had not been followed by the Agriculture Department while giving their report- Factum of the complainant having suffered loss due to poor quality of the seed has not been established by any scientist or other evidence- No illegality or irregularity in impugned order. Revision dismissed.
15. There is a mandatory provision under section 13(1)(c ) of the Consumer Protection Act for analysis of insecticides/ herbicides from the appropriate laboratory but the complainant has not followed the said provision nor moved any application to the concerned authority i.e. Agriculture Department or this Forum to get the sample from the OPs and send for analysis. Further no any notice has been served upon the OPs prior to inspection of the field and thus the report in question prepared at the back of the OPs is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Without any expert evidence on the record as provided in section 13(1)(c ) of the Consumer Protection Act it cannot be said that herbicides/ insecticides sold to the complainant were adulterated and were of inferior quality. Reliance on this point can be taken from the case law titled as Narender Kumar vs. M/s Arora Trading Companies 2007 (2) CLT page 683 and Banta Ram Vs. Jai Bharat and company and others 2013 Volume 2 page 616 National Commission wherein Hon’ble National Commission has held that petitioner had not got the seeds tested from any laboratory as required under provision of section 13(1) ( C ) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986- He had also not moved an application before the concerned authority for getting seed of the same batch, number, tested from any laboratory- report of agriculture department cannot be accepted as no notice of inspection of field for associating them with inspection- Inferior quality of seed not proved. The observations mentioned in the case laws titled as Shamsher Singh Vs. Bagri Beej Bhandar, Narender Kumar vs. M/s Arora Trading Companies & Banta Ram Vs. Jai Bharat and company and others (supra) are fully applicable in the present case.
16. Apart from above noted facts, the inspection team has totally failed to explain the criteria for not giving the good result of insecticides/ pesticides mentioned in the report. In the absence of method adopted by the said team, it cannot be said that the criteria adopted by the said committee is correct.. Besides this, the OPs tendered test report of Ravi Plant Biotechnoligies Limited Gujarat as Annexure R-4 wherein the product in question has been shown as standard quality and having full active ingredients. Even the complainant has not filed any cogent evidence from which it can be proved that the complainant has suffered any loss on account of crop. So, after going through the above noted discussion and law we are of the considered view that the report Annexure C-2 has no value in the eyes of law and there is no other evidence on the file to prove that herbicides/insecticides in question was of inferior quality.
17. Sequel of the above mentioned discussion is that the complainant has failed to prove any unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Therefore, the complaint of complainant is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit.. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court. 4.12.2015.
( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)
PRESIDENT
(S.C.SHARMA)
MEMBER
