Haryana

Kaithal

58/19

Sandeep - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Mahesh Trading Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Rajesh Majra

23 Feb 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                               Complaint Case No. 58 of 2019.

                                                               Date of institution:   05.03.2019.

                                                               Date of decision:      23.02.2024

 

Sandeep s/o Shri Sultan, r/o village Kichana, Tehsil Rajound, District Kaithal.

 

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                  Versus

 

1. M/s Mahesh Trading Company, Super Market, Nirwania Building, Kaithal.
2. Sumitomo Chemical India Pvt. Ltd., c/o Frontier Agencies (P) Ltd., General and Allied Industries Comp. GT Road, Bye Pass, Karnal-132001. PL No.K-2866/06, FL No.320 through its Director.

...Opposite Parties.

 

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

 

CORAM:   SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SHRI SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Shri Rajesh Majra, Advocate for the complainant.   

                   Shri Harikesh, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1.

                   Shri Rahul Gupta, Advocate for       Opposite Party No.2.

                  

ORDER  -  NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT:

        Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), against the OPs.

2.                In the complaint, complainant alleged that he is small farmer having 4 acres agricultural land in village Kichana. That he purchased SUMI Max pesticide from OP No.1 vide Invoice No.(M)9233, DL No.20B 660 OW/H on 24.12.2018 for a sum of Rs.4400/-. That he sown wheat in 4 acres of land and same grown up well. That he used the pesticides in the wheat to remove unnecessary weedicide but after spray of pesticides, the wheat crops has been damaged on account sub standard varieties of pesticides, sold by OPs. That he immediately approached OPs in this regard but nothing tangible has came out. That at last, he moved an application to the Deputy Director Agriculture, Kaithal and a team of experts visited his fields in his presence and other farmers/villagers and after inspection of crops, they prepared a report by specifically stating that the farmer have been caused loss to the extent of 70-80% on account of spray of pesticides sold by OPs. That he suffered a loss of Rs.1,90,000/- including the expenses incurred by him on the preparation of land, watering, pesticides, labour charges etc. due to supply of sub standard pesticides by the OPs. The above act of OPs, of selling sub standard pesticides, amounts to gross deficiency in service, on their part, due to which, he suffered huge physical harassment, mental agony as well as financial loss, constraining him, to file the present complaint, against the OPs, before this Commission.

3.             Upon notice of complaint, OPs appeared and filed their respective written statements.

4.                OP No.1, in its written statement stated that it is the first and primary liability of OP No.2, being the manufacturer of pesticide to indemnify the alleged loss, if any to the complainant. OP No.1 is only the sub dealer of OP No.2 and is not responsible to indemnify any loss to be occurred to the complainant. The report of agriculture committee regarding the inspection of the field of the complainant is false and bogus one and same is not believable as the said committee so appointed did not serve any prior notice to OP No.1 regarding the inspection of alleged crop of complainant. Rest of the contents of the complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal the present complaint with heavy costs.

5.                OP No.2, in its written statement stated that no product can be declared defective or sub standard unless its sample has been got tested from the appropriate laboratory under Section 13(i)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is denied that the complainant used Herbicide in question in 4 acres of land and further that after spray of herbicide, the wheat crop has been damaged, on account of sub standard herbicide of OP No.2. The complainant has not mentioned the procedure of spray and time of spraying the herbicide on the crop. The report of agriculture department is false and has been obtained at the back of OPs, which is also bad in view of letter No.52-70 dated 03.01.2002 issued by the Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula.

6.                To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C11.

7.                On the other hand, OP No.1, in its evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure OP-1 and Annexure OP-2. OP No.2, in its evidence tendered documents Annexure R-1 and Annexure R-2.

8.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

9.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased SUMI Max pesticide from OP No.1 on 24.12.2018 for a sum of Rs.4400/-. He further argued that the complainant sown wheat in 4 acres of land and same grown up well and he used the pesticides in the wheat to remove unnecessary weedicide but after spray of pesticides, the wheat crops has been damaged, on account sub-standard varieties of pesticides, sold by OPs. He further argued that the complainant immediately approached OPs, in this regard but nothing tangible has came out. He further argued that at last, the complainant moved an application to the Deputy Director Agriculture, Kaithal and a team of experts visited his fields in his presence and other farmers/villagers and after inspection of crops, they prepared a report by specifically stating that the farmer have been caused loss to the extent of 70-80% on account of spray of pesticides sold by OPs, but the OPs failed to pay the loss amount to the complainant despite repeated requests, which amounts to gross deficiency in service, on their part. In order to support his contentions, he placed reliance upon case laws titled Rajinder Singh Versus Hariali Kissan Bajar, First Appeal No.1451 of 2011 (Punjab State Commission, Chandigarh), Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Versus Mahaboob Sab & 2 Ors, Revision Petition No.2357 of 2014 (NC).

10.              On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 has it is the first and primary liability of OP No.2, being the manufacturer of pesticide to indemnify the alleged loss, if any to the complainant. He further argued that OP No.1 is only the sub dealer of OP No.2 and is not responsible to indemnify any loss to be occurred to the complainant. He further argued that the report of agriculture committee regarding the inspection of the field of the complainant is false and bogus one and same is not believable as the said committee so appointed did not serve any prior notice to OP No.1 regarding the inspection of alleged crop of complainant. He further argued that complainant has not complied with the provisions of Section 86 of CP Act, 2019 by not filing any chemical report on the case file.

11.              Learned counsel for OP No.2 has argued that no product can be declared defective or sub standard unless its sample has been got tested from the appropriate laboratory under Section 13(i)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He further argued that the inspection team has got conducted the inspection of the fields of the complainant in their absence, without issuing any notice to the OPs. Learned counsel for OP No.2 denied that the complainant used Herbicide in question in 4 acres of land and further that after spray of herbicide, the wheat crop has been damaged, on account of sub standard herbicide of OP No.2. The complainant has not mentioned the procedure of spray and time of spraying the herbicide on the crop. The report of agriculture department is false and has been obtained at the back of OPs, which is also bad in view of letter No.52-70 dated 03.01.2002 issued by the Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula.

12.               From GST Invoice Annexure C-9, it is evident that on 24.12.2018, the complainant purchased Sumi Max pesticides for a sum of Rs.4400/- from OP No.1.

13.              The complainant alleged that he sown wheat in 4 acres of land, which was grown up well and he used the said pesticides in his wheat to remove unnecessary weedicide but after spray of pesticides, the wheat crops has been damaged, on account sub standard varieties of pesticides, sold by OPs. Upon which, on 24.12.2018, he moved an application to Agriculture Officer, Kaithal, who inspected fields of complainant and made Inspection Report Annexure C-1.

14.              Contrary to it, learned counsel for OP No.1 has firstly contended that the inspection team has got conducted the inspection of the fields of the complainant in their absence, without issuing any notice to the OPs, as such, report Annexure C-1, prepared by the inspecting team cannot be believed. In this regard, he placed reliance upon case law titled “Indian Farmers fertilizers co-operative Vs. Bhup Singh in Revision Petition No.2144 of 2014 decided on  09.04.2015 and the  relevant portion of the said judgement is reproduced as under:-

“6.     Perusal of inspection report clearly reveals that inspection was made by a team of B.A.O., S.M.S. (PP) and SDAO whereas, as per circular of Director of Agriculture, Haryana dated 03.01.2002 fields were to be inspected by a committee comprising of two officers of Agriculture Department, one representative of concerned seed agency and scientist of KGK/KVK. Admittedly, inspection was not carried out after due notice to representative of OP and Scientist was not called and admittedly, not in their presence.  In such circumstances, inspection report made by some officers of Agriculture Department cannot be acted upon and on the basis of this report, it cannot be inferred that seeds were not of standard quality, particularly, when these seeds were certified by Haryana State Seed Certification Agency.  Learned District Forum and learned State Commission wrongly observed that non formation of team as per circular of director of Agriculture was not fault of the complainant.  At the time of inspection, complainant should have asked the inspecting team to intimate OP as well Scientist for carrying out inspection and as inspection has not been done by the duly constituted committee, no reliance can be placed on this inspection report and no deficiency can be attributed on the part of the petitioner.

 

15.              So, in the light of aforesaid judgment, it becomes clear that report Annexure C-1, obtained by the complainant, without notice to OPs, cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, in report Annexure C-1, the said inspecting team has not mentioned that the pesticides in question used by the complainant was of sub standard quality, rather the said Inspecting Team has mentioned in the report Annexure C-1 that the complainant has told that he purchased the seed in question from OP No.1 and sprayed the same in wheat crop. So, from perusal of said report it is nowhere proved that the pesticides which was purchased by the complainant from OP No.1 has been sprayed, by the complainant, in the same fields, which he got inspected from the inspecting team.

16.              Complainant has produced photographs as Annexure C-4 on the case file, wherein, he is sitting in a field and alleging that it is the field where by sprayed the pesticides in question due to which the wheat crop has been damaged, but it is pertinent to mention here that from these photographs, it is nowhere proved that field shown therein belongs to complainant or complainant has definitely sprayed the pesticides in these fields, due to which, the wheat crop allegedly to be damaged. So, these photographs Annexure C4 has no favour to the case of complainant.

17.              From bill Annexure C-9, we found that the complainant purchased the pesticides in question on 24.12.2018 and it is very surprising that the complainant has moved the application before Agriculture Officer, Kaithal regarding the alleged loss to his crop on the very same day i.e. 24.12.2018.  However, how it is possible that the complainant sprayed the pesticides in question on 24.12.2018 and on the very same day, his wheat crop was damaged due to it, which is not understandable. Moreover, in this regard, the learned counsel for OP No.2 has drawn attention towards document Annexure R-2, wherein, in Column “Waiting period between last spray and harvest (in days)” is mentioned 137 days. Meaning thereby, the waiting period after last spray of pesticides and harvest of crop is 137 days, but in the case in hand, the complainant is claiming that his crop has been damaged on the very same day after spraying the pesticides in question, which is not possible.

18.              Learned counsel for OPs has contended that complainant has not complied with the provisions of Section 86 of CP Act, 2019 by not filing any chemical report on the case file. He further contended that complainant has failed to produce any chemical report on the case with regard to spray of insecticide on the crop. From perusal of case file, we found this contentions of OPs plausible. To support his above contentions, he placed reliance upon case law titled Jagraj Singh of Mansa Vs. M/s Healthy Crops Private Limited & Another, Appeal No.16 of 1993, Date of Decision 22.04.1993, wherein, Hon’ble Punjab State Commission, Chandigarh has held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sections 2 & 14 – Defective insecticide- Complainant/Appellant claimed compensation from the opposite party alleging that the ‘Monicit’ insecticide purchased by him proved ineffective in killing the ‘Sundies’ and ‘Tela’ in his Narma crop –No chemical report was placed on the file with regard to spray of insecticide on the crop – He failed to prove in clear and unmistakable terms that the insecticide in question was really not of proper standard – He failed to prove actual loss to his crops – Under the circumstances no relief can be granted to the appellant- prayer for remanding the case to fill up the lacuna by allowing additional evidence, declined.

19.              Furthermore, the complainant has also failed to comply with the provisions of Section 13 (1)(c) of the Act, by filing application for testing the pesticides in question, from any expert or analyst, which is mandatory as per provisions of law.       

20.              So, keeping in mind all the circumstances, findings can be safely given that the complainant failed to prove on the record the pesticides, supplied by the OPs, to the complainant was of poor quality or sub-standard and due to that, the wheat of complainant causes loss. Hence, we found no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The case laws, produced by the complainant, are not disputed, but the same are not applicable to the case in hand, being rested on different footings. 

21.              Hence, due to the reasons stated hereinbefore, present complaint is, dismissed, it being devoid on merits, leaving the complainant to bear his own costs of litigations. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records, after due compliance.      

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.:23.02.2024.

                                                                                      (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                      President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha).             (Suman Rana).              

Member.                                  Member.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.