| Final Order / Judgement | District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Aligarh Date of Institution : 13.07.2021 Date of final hearing: 09.01.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 19.01.2023 Case No. 103/2021 IN THE MATTER OF Yogesh S/o Sri Basant Singh R/o Village Rasool pur PO Maur,Tehsil Khair Aligarh V/s - M/s Shreeji Pesticides Pvt. Ltd., Block No69/P Village Manjusar, Tehsil Savli, District Vadodra 391775,Gujrat.
- M/s Willowood Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. Having its corporate office at 503, 5th floor,salcon Aurum, District center, Jasola, New Delhi
- M/s Mahesh Beej Bhandar, Main Road, Jattari, Tehsil Khair, Aligarh through its Prop. Shri trivendra Kumar Agrawal
- Zila Krishi Adhikari , Aligarh
CORAM Present: - Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President
- Shri Alok Upadhayay, Member
- Smt. Purnima Singh Rajpoot, Member
PRONOUNCED by Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President JUDGMENT - The present complaint has been filed by the complainant before this commission for the following reliefs-
- The Op be directed to pay the cost of the product/pesticides Rs.4800/.
- Compensation for Crop lost Rs.900000/
- Compensation for Mental torture Rs.10000/
- Cost of the litigation Rs. 25000/
- The Complainant has stated that he had purchased the product PRETILACHLOR 37% EW for Rs.4800/ vide cash memo no. 4/183 dated 6.7.2015 from Op no. 3 manufactured by OpNo.1 and supplied by OP No.2.which destroyed the weeds of paddy crop over an area of 100 bigha. The above product failed to control the germinations of weeds in the paddy crop and rice and the yield of paddy rice reduced substantially due to the large quantity of weeds in paddy crop. Ops no1 and 2 cheated the complainant by manufacturing and supplying the fake product/pesticide causing unbearable loss to the complainant. Op no. 1 and 2 are facing thousands of cases of manufacturing and supplying the fake product/pesticide at various places. Hence the complainant filed the complaint.
- Ops no.1and 2 raised the preliminary objection as to the complaint is time barred on account of the fact that the product was purchased on 4.7.2015. It is stated in WS that the Op no. 1 is a company registered as Companies Act, 1956 and is India’s leading agro chemical company. It manufactured and is selling many quality products since its establishment. Company is certified by ISO 9001 ISO 14001OHSAS 18001and its products are well known among Indian farmers for their efficacy and excellence. Batch no. of the product are not mentioned in his bill attached with complaint. Op no.2 has never shown the product mentioned in the bill and without mentioning batch no. bill issued in the name of complainant is forged one which was issued by OP no.3. Complainant has been filed to fleece money out Op no. 1&2. It is further stated that the complainant has bought the product from Op no.3 who has been a habitual defaulter in making payment to Op no.2. Op no.3 has not made any such payment and the op no.3 must have sold fake sample of the said product to the complainant. Op no2 filed a case under section 138 N.I.Act in the competent court at Delhi and is pending. The product was of high quality which could be deciphered from its lab report. It is denied that the Op no.1 and 2 had cheated the complainant by manufacturing and supplying fake product causing loss to the complainant. The complainant did not read the instruction properly provided on the bottle with regard to its usage. OP no.1 &2 are not liable to pay any compensation. Complaint is liable to be dismissed.
- Op no3 stated in WS that he was the authorized dealer of Willowood Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. and the pesticide- PRETILACHLOR -37% EW batch no. WS 15 PW2001 was given to the farmers mentioned in the WS which was distributed by the company OP No.2 and the farmers had used the pesticides in accordance with the instruction given by the company. In the beginning the complainant made by 1 or 2 farmer was ignore but on receiving the complainant from all the farmers, then the answering OP contacted the representative of the company. Thereafter Radheshyam Verma and Milikhan Singh, the representative of the company came to him and they conducted survey of the fields of the farmers and the complaint was found correct. They had assure to bring into the knowledge of higher officer. The complainant remained subsisting and the farmer were putting pressure on the answering OP who again contacted Radheshyam Verma and Malikhan Singh who told that they had inform the higher officer of the company and the company would compensate the farmers. By that time one month had passed in the growth of the crop and know other pesticides could have a fact on the crop which could damage the crop. The company is solely responsible to compensate the damages caused to the farmer.
- Op no. 4 stated in WS that the chemical pretilachlor 37%Ew batch no. WS 15 PW2001 mfg date 10.04.2015 was expired on 09.04.2017. The sampling of those chemical is not possible at the present time. It was further stated that said chemicals could not be prove beneficial to the crop of the farmers and no inspection of the fields of the farmers the weeds were found in the crop. OP no.1 &2 refuse to furnish the sample or chemical for examination/testing nor any stock of the said chemical was found with the distributor OP no3.
- Complainant has filed his affidavit and papers in support of his pleadings. Ops have also filed affidavit in support of their pleadings.
- We have perused the material available on record and heard the parties counsel.
- The first question of consideration before us is whether the chemicals /pesticides in question proved successful to eliminate the weeds in the crop of the farmers?
- It is not disputed that the pesticides were manufacturing by the OP No. 1 and the supplied by the OP No.2 sell by the OP No.3 OP no.4 is Zila Krishi Raksha Adhikari who is an independent person. It is alleged that the OP No.3 had sold the pesticides to 10 farmers. The OP no.1 and 2 have stated that the OP No.3 had issued the forged bills and they have tried to say that the product sold by op no3 to the farmers are not related to them. OP no.3 is the dealer who is alleged to have sold the pesticides to the farmers. OP no.3 has stated in WS supported by the affidavits that he had brought about the complaint of the farmer into the notice of the company and company had appointed two representatives who had visited the fields of the farmers and on inspection of the field it was found by them that the chemicals were not effective in weeding’s out the weeds of the crop. He has specially named the representative who were Radheshyam Verma and Malikhan Singh. In these circumstances, the assertion made by the Op No.3 becomes reliable and it cannot said that the product manufactured by the Op 1 and supplied by Op 2 to the Op no3 was not sold. It is found that the pesticides manufactured by Op No.1 and supplied by the Op no.2 to the OP no.3 were sold by the farmers. It is clear from the inspection made by the representative of OP No.1 that the chemical/pesticides in question were not effective. OP no.4 who is an independent person has also supported the finding of the inspection made by the representatives of the OP no.1. Thus It is concluded that the chemical/pesticides were not effective in weeding out the weeds of the crop of the farmer and it caused damages to the crops of the farmer. OP No.1 is liable to compensate the damages caused to the farmers.
- The question formulated above is decided in favour of the complainant
- The second question of consideration before us is whether the complaint is time barred ?
- Complainant had purchased the pesticides on 6.7.2015 which could be used before its expiry date in the year 2017 as stated by the OP No.4 Thus the products could be used by the end of year 2017 and the complaint could be filed within two years in the year 2019. The complaint has been filed on 21.10.2019. Besides this, quorum of the commission was not complete in the year2019 and there after the quorum completed in the month of June, 2021. The complaint was admitted on the completion of the quorum and it is the discretion of the commission U/s 69(2) of the Act, 2019 to condone the delay having satisfied. It is also relevant here that in view of provision of section 35 of the Act the complaint shall be deemed have been admitted after passing 21 days from the date of filing the complaint.
- The question formulated above is decided in favour of the complainant.
- Third question of consideration before us is the determination of quantum of compensation to be awarded to the complainant?
- Complainant has claimed the compensation Rs.900000/ for the damages caused to the crop. Complainant has stated the loss of the paddy crop over an area of 100 bigha. Complainant has not stated the basis for assessment of the compensation but it is clear that the yield of paddy rice had reduced substantially and it is common knowledge that manure, water and labour also involved in growing the crop and therefore the cost of fertilizer, water and labour may be included in making assessment of the compensation. Accordingly, compensation may be assessed at Rs. 1000/ per bigha which comes to Rs. 100000/ for 100 bigha. The cost of pesticides Rs.4800/ be also included and thus Total amount of compensation for damages caused to the crop is assessed at Rs. 104800/.
- The revelant law is laid down in Appeal No. A/2009/2234 Vishnu Gopal Sharma vs Prabhu ji Beej Bhandar decided on 12.09.2019 by Hon’ble SCDRC, U.P.
- The question formulated above is decided in favour of the complainant
- Keeping in view the facts of the present case, we hereby direct to Op No.1 to pay the sum Rs.104800/ with pendente lite and future interest at the rate 9% per annum. Op No. 1 is also directed to pay to the complainant Rs. 10000/ for compensation for harassment and Rs.10000/ for litigation expenses.
- Op shall comply with the direction within a month failing which OPs shall be prosecuted for non-compliance in accordance with section 72 of the Act for awarding punishment against him.
- A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties as per rule as mandated by Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
- File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.
( Hasnain Qureshi ) President ( Alok Upadhayay) Member Pronounced On: | |
