Haryana

Karnal

CC/185/2021

Samay Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s UPL Unimart Depot - Opp.Party(s)

Satish Kamboj

04 Jul 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 185 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.25.03.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:04.07.2024

 

1. Samay Singh 2. Raghbir Singh 3. Randhir Singh sons of Shri Sardha Ram, residents of village Bhusli, tehsil and District Karnal.

 

                                               …….Complainants.

                                              Versus

 

1. M/s UPL Unimart Depot, shop no.514, New Grain Market, Karnal through its proprietor/partner.
2. M/s UPL Limited Registered office 3-11, GIDC Vapi Gujrat-396195.
3. Privi Life Sciences Pvt. Limited 22/iA, MIDC, Dhatav, Roha, District Raigad, Maharashtra-402109.

 

…..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr.  Suman Singh…..Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Satish Kamboj, counsel for the complainants.

                    Shri Atul Mittal, counsel for the OPs.

 

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainants have filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainants are agriculturist by profession and are owners in possession of agricultural land situated in village Bhusali, Tehsil and District Karnal. Besides cultivating their own agricultural land, the complainants also take the land of other persons on lease on yearly basis. In this year, complainants had taken the land on lease 15 acre owned by Sumer Chand and also 7 Bighas land owned by Kanwar Lal for the period from 01.05.2020 to 30.04.2021. Thus, the complainants are jointly cultivating the land measuring 23 acres. Besides producing the paddy, wheat, mustard and other crops, the complainants are also producing the Garlic crop. The complainants are regularly planting garlic in four acres. The complainants had purchased 12.80 quintals garlic bulb (seeds) from M/s Hari Om Garlic Company, shop no.584-A, New Subji Mandi, Karnal vide invoice no.190 dated 12.10.2020 for a sum of Rs.90880/-. After preparing the fields, the complainants planted the said garlic seed in four acres of land. The complainants had given the manures, fertilizers and herbicides as usually given by the complainants. The complainants have planted this garlic crop in the mid of October, 2020. The complainants spent Rs.4,00,000/- in production of said crop which includes, ploughing, seed, watering, fertilizers and labourer etc. The Marketing Representative of the OPs approached and prevailed upon the complainant no.1 for using their product for yielding a good crop of garlic. They advised spray of Gainexa FC produced by OP no.3 and marketed by OP no.2, by stating that it is a patented formulation technology of Bio-Active silicon fortified with other nutrients and growth promontory ingredients for crop. Simultaneously, they also advised spray of fungicide i.e. Advancer Glow manufactured by OP no.2. On the recommendations of the representatives of the OPs, the complainants purchased Gainexa FC two liter vide bill no.2022100382 dated 18.12.2020 and bill 202100389 dated 21.12.2020. The complainants also purchased the Advancer Glow 900 Grams vide bill no.202100400 dated 28.12.2020 from OP no.1. The complainants made the solution of said products, sprayed uniformly in four acres of garlic field while using 180-200 liters water per acre and particularly as per the package of practice as well as directions of the OP no.1 and also as per the directions given on the literature of the said products. After spraying the said products the complainants were surprised to see when the garlic crop became yellow and it started deteriorating day by day. Complainants approached the OP no.1 and told about the same.  OP no.1 assured that after some time the garlic would grow and recover properly but after 10-15 days the crop was damaged completely.  Thereafter, complainants moved an application dated 16.02.2021 before the Tehsildar Karnal with a request to inspect the fields of complainants and to make a report regarding the actual land and factual position of garlic crop and on the said application of the complainants, Tehsildar deputed the concerned Halqa Patwari and Halqa Patwari physically inspected the fields and made a report that the garlic crop planted in land measuring four acres has  been completely damaged and it is a 100% loss. Similarly, complainants moved an application dated 17.02.2021 to the District Horticulture Officer, Uchani Karnal with a request to inspect the fields of complainants and to make a report regarding the actual and factual position prevailing at the spot and on the said application of the complainants, on 19.02.2021 a departmental team and scientist of NHRDF namely Dr. Manoj Pathak and R.B Singh visited the fields of the complainants and vide letter no.173-75 dated 09.03.2021 the District Horticulture Officer, Karnal informed the complainants that the inspection team made an observation and because of spray of aforesaid products, the loss to garlic crop in the fields is 70% to 80%. Before visiting the fields of the complainants, the officials of DHO Karnal informed the OP no.1 for inspection of fields and asked the OP no.1 to remain present on the spot at the time of inspection and accordingly the representative of OPs was present on the spot at the time of inspection and as such the said inspection was conducted in presence of representatives of the OPs. On receiving these reports i.e. report prepared by the Halka Patwari and NHRDF team, the complainants again approached the OP no.1 for doing the needful and for paying compensation, but to no avail. Due to poor quality of the products of the OPs, garlic crop was completely damaged. The expected crop of garlic in one acre is 45 to 50 quintals and thus the complainants have suffered a loss of 180 to 200 quintals. The said garlic crop was to be harvested in the month of March, 2021 and in March  2021 market rate of garlic was Rs.75 per kilograms and as such the complainants have suffered a loss of Rs.13,50,000/-. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs no.1 and 2 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that seed crop like any other crop depends, apart from the seed quality, upon agro climatic conditions, type of soil, water and irrigation facilities, supply of nutrients and effective use of fertilizers etc. Besides proper germination of seed, correct agricultural practices have to be followed. Product of the complaint does not show and prove that all other requirements were properly met. The present complaint is misconceived and untenable for the following reason:-

1. The complainants have merely mentioned in his complaint that upon spraying of the pesticide the crop got burnt however he has nowhere mentioned whether the pesticide was de-concentrated prior to spraying or nor or whether the instructions as mentioned in the product leaflet for using the said product were followed or not.
2. The complainants have not enclosed even a single photographs of the affected area and crops.
3. The complainants have failed to produce even a single report which could suggest that the product as described by complainants was used for spraying.

        The assessment of the loss is not at all conducted and the figures are merely presumptive in nature. Prior to the present complaint no complaint was ever made by complainants to OPs nor the OPs were granted an opportunity to independently assess the nature of loss suffered by the complainants. It is further pleaded that the product manufactured by OP no.2 is duly certified and approved product for use as a pesticide and has been certified by various Agriculture Institutes of India. The aforesaid product has been put to various tests before applying for certification and only upon successful testing the product gets license for marketing and sale. Even otherwise, the inspection report does not prove that the crop has been damaged on account of adulteration or deficiency in the aforesaid product. The report merely mentions the extent of damage however it cannot be said that the loss occurred due to usage of product of OPs. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.3 filed its separate written version but followed the same lines of written version filed by the OPs no.1 and 2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainants has tendered into evidence affidavit of Samay Singh Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Sumer Chand Ex.C1, affidavit of Kanwar Lal Ex.C2, copy of bill of Garlic Ex.C3, copy of bills of pesticides Ex.C4 to Ex.C6, copy of application dated 16.02.2021 Ex.C7, copy of report of Halka Patwari Tehsildar, Karnal Ex.C8, copy of report of District Horticulture Karnal Ex.C9, photographs Ex.C10 and Ex.C11, copy of jamabandi for the year 2017-2018 Ex.C12 and Ex.C13 and closed the evidence on 09.02.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Ravi Mehta Ex.OW1/A, affidavit of Rajinder Arora Ex.OW2/A, copy of resolution Ex.O1 and closed the evidence on 18.04.2023.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8.             Learned counsel for the complainants, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainants are having agriculture land measuring 15 Bigas-2Biswa and also had taken the  15 acres of land on lease from Sumer Chand  and Kanwar Lal. On 12.10.2020, the complainants had purchased 12.80 quintal garlic from M/s Hari Om Garlic Company Karnal for a sum of Rs.90880/- and planted the same in four acres of their land. Complainants spent Rs.4,00,000/-per acre in production of the said crop. On 18.10.2020, complainants purchased the pesticides from OP no.1 and sprayed the same as per the instructions of the OPs in their garlic crops but after some days the garlic crop was totally damaged due to said pesticides.  On 16.02.2021, complainants moved an application before the Tehsildar Karnal for inspection of their crops and as per inspection report the garlic crop of complainants has been completely damaged in four acres of land. On 17.02.2021, complainants also moved an application to the District Horticulture Officer, Uchani Karnal for inspection of the fields of complainants. The Committee of the said department had inspected the fields of complainants and observed that due to spray of aforesaid products, the loss to garlic crop in the fields is 70% to 80%. Due to inferior quality of the products of the OPs, garlic crop had been completely damaged. The complainants have suffered financial loss of Rs.13,50,000/- and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

9.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OPs, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that OPs are manufacturer and seller of the product namely ‘Avancer Glow”, which is duly certified and approved product for used as a pesticide in agriculture crops. Complainants have failed to prove their case by placing on file, documentary evidence with regard to alleged damage crops. The story of the complainant is merely an afterthought just to get the compensation from the OPs. Complainants have not sprayed the said pesticide as per the guidelines of the OPs and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs.

10.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

11.           Admittedly, complainants purchased the pesticide, vide bills Ex.C4 to Ex.C6 from the OP no.1. It is also admitted that OPs are manufacturer and seller of the said product. It is also admitted complainants purchased garlic seeds from M/s Hari Om Galic Company, Karnal, vide bill Ex.C3 dated 12.12.2020.

12.           It has been proved from Ex.C12, affidavit of Sumer Chand Ex.C1 and affidavit of Kanwar Lal Ex.C2, complainants are owner of land and had taken the land on lease from said Sumer Chand and Kanwar Lal.

13.           Complainants have alleged that due to spraying the pesticides purchased from the OPs, their garlic crop has been totally burnt/damaged. The onus to prove their version was relied upon the complainants. To prove their version, complainants moved an application Ex.C7 to the Tehsildar, Karnal for inspection of their crops. As per report Ex.C8 dated 12.03.2021 of Tehsildar, Karnal, the garlic crops of the complainants were 100% destroyed due to spray of pesticide purchased from the OPs.

14.           On 17.02.2021, complainants also moved an application to District Horticulture Officer, Karnal for inspection of the damaged garlic crops. On 19.02.2021, the fields of the complainants were inspected by the team of said department and scientist Dr. Manoj Pathak and R.B. Singh of Horticulture Department and on inspection they came to the conclusion that the garlic crop of complainants was damaged upto 70% to 80% due to spray of pesticide. In this regard District Horticulture Officer, Karnal prepared his report Ex.C9 dated 09.03.2021.

15.           Complainants have also placed on file photographs of the damaged garlic crop Ex.C10 and Ex.C11. From the report of Ex.C8 dated 12.03.2021 of Tehsildar, Karnal and report Ex.C9 dated 09.03.2021 of Horticulture Department and photographs, it has been proved on record that due to spray of pesticide of OPs, the garlic crop of complainants was completely damaged.

16.           Now the question that remains to be decided is regarding the quantum of compensation to be awarded  to the complainants. The complainants have claimed an amount of Rs.13,50,000/- for loss suffered by them alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and Rs.1,00,000/- on account of harassment, mental pain and agony and Rs.55000/- as cost of litigations.

 17.          During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainants have placed on file copy of brochure of Chaudhary Charan Singh Agriculture, University Haryana regarding the yield of  Fruit, Flower and Vegetable Production and Preservation (Comprehensive Recommendation) as per said brochure the yield of the garlic crop is between 40 to 50 quintal per acre. Learned counsel for the complainants also placed on file, copies of J-Forms belonging to other farmers of the said year. As per said J-Forms, the rate of the garlic crop is between Rs.4800/- to Rs.5700/- per quintal. Complainants have sown garlic crop in four acres of land. Thus, while considering the abovesaid brochure and J-Forms, the cost of the garlic crop comes out of Rs.5250/- per acre and total comes out to be Rs.9,45,000/- (Rs.5250x45quintalx4acres.). Thus, while considering the above, it would be justified if the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- be awarded to the complainants on account of loss suffered by them due to damage of garlic crop alongwith compensation for harassment, mental pain and agony and litigation expenses.

 18.          Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.6,00,000/- (Rs.six lacs only) to the complainants. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainants on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.11,000/- towards the litigation expenses. All the OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear if the awarded amount is not paid by the OPs within stipulated period then this amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of announcement of the order till its realization. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced:

Dated: 04.07.2024   

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Suman Singh)

                 Member                            Member