Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/580/2012

Somi Devi 52 year w/o Shri Gian Chand, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Mahadev Seed & Pesticides, - Opp.Party(s)

Pankaj Kamboj

25 May 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

Complaint No. 580 of 2012

Date of institution: 30.05.2012

Date of decision: 25.05.2017.

 

Somi Devi aged about 52 years wife of Shri Gian Chand, resident of Village Lakshibass, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

…Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. M/s Mahadev Seed & Pesticides, VPO Jathlana, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, through its Proprietor/Partner.
2. M/s Atul Ltd. Atul 396020, District Valsad (Gujarat) through its M.D./Chair person/Authorized Signatory ( Manufacturer of Synmet Pesticides).
3. Swal Corporation Ltd. 167, Dr. Annie Besent Road Worli, Mumbai-400018 through its M.D./Chair Person/ Authorized Signatory ( Manufacturer of Swal Toppel).                                                                                                                                                                                 

 

                                                                                                       …Respondents.

 

BEFORE:       SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND…………MEMBER

Present:           Sh. Pankaj Kamboj, Advocate for complainant

                        Sh. Amit Sharma, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.1.

                        Sh. Jasbir Singh, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.3.

                        Respondent No.2 already ex-parte vide order dated 27.07.2012.

 

ORDER

 

1                       The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986.

 2.                    Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased weed killer in the name of Swal Toppel Clodinofop Propagyl Batch No. LHJTP-15134 for Rs. 270/- and Synmet Batch No.2 for Rs. 220/- vide bill No. 1579 dated 30.12.2011 from the respondent No.1 (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs) manufactured by OP No.3 whose authorized dealer is respondent No.2.The complainant had used/made spray the said weed killers/pesticides on 31.12.2011 in his wheat crop as per instructions suggested by the Op No1 but the said pesticides damaged and dried the wheat crop of complainant completely. Thereafter, the complainant approached to the Op No.1 and told him about the inferior quality of weed killers pesticides and requested him to compensate the complainant as the entire wheat crop in 10 Kanal has been dried/burnt completely but the OP No.1 refused to compensate the complainant and even misbehaved with her. Therefore, the complainant moved an application to Assistant Horticulture Officer, Yamuna Nagar who inspected the site alongwith Shri Jagdish Chand Agriculture Development Officer and found the version of complainant true and took the sample of concerned batch and sent the same for analysis to the concerned department. As per report of Assistant Plant Protection Officer, Yamuna Nagar  the complainant has suffered a loss to the tune of Rs. 40,000/-.  Hence, this complaint praying therein that the OPs be directed to pay an amount of Rs. 40,000/- on account of damages of wheat crop suffered due to selling of inferior quality of pesticides and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs No.1 & 3 appeared and filed its written statement separately whereas Op No.2 failed to appear despite service, hence he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 27.07.2012.

4.                     OP No.1 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable as there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1; complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint; complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint qua OP No.1; complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by her own act and conduct; the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum and have not come to this Forum with clean hands. The true facts are that the OP No.1 is the retailer of herbicides supplied by OP No.3 company in sealed packets. The main dealer of Op No.1 is M/s Sohan Lal Aggarwal, Shahbad and from that firm the OP No.1 had purchased the said herbicides of wheat vide bill and admitted the fact that the complainant approached to Agriculture Department and after that the officials of Agriculture Department, Jathlana went to the spot and inspected the fields of complainant on 14.03.2012 and prepared the report. After that, the samples of the herbicides of the same lot were taken from the shop of OP No.1 and sent to the appropriate laboratory. On analysis of the sample, no deficiency was found in the herbicides. So, from these facts it is clear that the damages to the crop of complainant took place due to her own fault and not due to any sub-standard quality of herbicides and on merit controverted the plea taken in the complaint and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint qua Op No.1.

5.                     OP No.3 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint; complainant has no locus standi to file thepresent complaint; complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct. The complainant has concealed the true and material facts and have not come to this Forum with clean hands; complaint of the complainant is false and frivolous to the very knowledge of the complainant and has been filed just to harass the OP No. 3 as there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3. It has been submitted that the OpNo.1 who is retailer had forwarded the complaint made by the complainant regarding the loss of his crops and then the Regional Sales Manager of Op No.3 visited the site and found that the crop of the complainant had been damaged but the damages was not due to the product sold to the complainant because the mode of action of this product is not such which could cause damage to the crop. It has been further mentioned that this type of herbicide been sold in large quantity (five lac packets in Punjab & Haryana) but no complaint of this nature was received from any farmer. The Agriculture Department , Yamuna Nagar also purchased 18000 units of this herbicide under National Food Security Mission, which was supplied to various farmers on 50% subsidy basis and no complaint was received from any farmer. The complainant also made a complaint to the Agriculture Department and after that the official of Agriculture Department namely Shri Jagdish Chand  Agriculture Development Officer, Jathlana went to the spot and inspected the field  of the complainant on 14.03.2012. After that the samples of the herbicides of the same lot were taken from the shop of the OP by the concerned officer and on analysis of the sample, no deficiency was found in the herbicides. The reports given by the Insecticides Quality Control Lab, Sirsa/ Karnal/ Rohtak are enclosed as Annexure R-2. So, from these facts it is clear that the damage to the crop of the complainant took place due to her own fault and not due to any sub-standard nature of the herbicides.  It has been further alleged that in the present case the nature of herbicide is not such which can burn/stress the plant even if the quantity used is excessive and on merit controverted the plea taken in the complaint and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.  

6.                     In support her case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence her short affidavit as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of invoice as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of inspection report of agriculture department as Annexure C-2, Photographs of crop as Annexure C-3 to C-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

7.                     On the other hand, counsel for OPs No.1 & 3 failed to adduce any evidence, hence their evidence was close by court order on dated 23.05.2017.  However, at the time of filing of written statement OP No.1 tendered Photo copy of Analysis Report  dated 12.03.2012 as Ex. R-1 & R-2, Report of Agriculture Department as Ex. R-3, Photo copy of satisfaction note of farmers as Ex. R-4 to R-12 in support of its version.

8.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file.

9.                     It is not disputed that complainant had purchased pesticides swaltoppel clodinofop propagyl batch No. LHJTP 15134 for Rs. 270 and Synmet Batch No. 02 for Rs. 220/- total amounting to Rs. 490/- from Op No.1 vide bill No.1579 dated 30.12.2011 (Annexure C1) manufactured by OP No.  2 & 3. 

10.                   Learned counsel for the complainant argued that after purchasing the said pesticides she sprayed the said weed killer/ pesticides on 31.12.2011 in her wheat crop field but the said pesticides damaged/ burnt and dried the wheat crop of the complainant completely then she moved an application to the Agriculture Department for inspection of the said field. The Assistant Plant Protection Officer, Yamuna Nagar inspected the field of the complainant and prepared a report (Annexure C-2) and the official of the Agriculture Department mentioned  in his report that due to inferior quality of herbicides, the wheat crop of the complainant in about 10 kanal has been burnt and due to this the complainant has suffered a loss of about Rs. 40,000 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.

11.                   Learned counsel for the OPs No. 1 and 3 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 & 3 or to OP No.1 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 argued that the sample of the herbicide of the same lot were taken from the shop of OPs and sent for analysis  draw our attention towards certificate of Analysis report (Ex.  R-1 and R-2) in which the product in question has been shown as permissible quality and having 14.45% 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.

12.                   Further the learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 3 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.

13.                   The contention of the complainant is that the herbicides in question were of inferior quality and wheat crop of the complainant has been burnt due to spray in her field and to prove her contention she 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 only one agriculture officer, 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 Sarpanch, 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 authenticated because the alleged inspection has been made by the official 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.                   Apart from above noted facts, the inspection officer has totally failed to explain in the report how the wheat crop of the complainant has been burnt in the report. In the absence of method adopted by the said officer, it cannot be said that the wheat crop was burnt due to inferior quality of pesticide and the said report is correct. Besides this, the OPs tendered test report of insecticides quality Control Lab, Sirsa/Karnal/Rohtak as Ex. R-2 wherein the product in question has been shown as permissible quality. 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 were of inferior quality.   

16.                   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. 25.05.2017.

             

                                                                              ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                               PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                  (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)         (S.C.SHARMA)

                   MEMBER                                          MEMBER