Haryana

StateCommission

A/870/2015

HINDUSTAN INSECITICIDES LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAMBIR - Opp.Party(s)

JAINAINDER SAINI

22 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.870 of 2015

Date of the Institution: 12.10.2015

Date of Decision: 22.03.2016

 

Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. (A Govt. of India Enterprise). Mfd. & Packed at Plot No.A-4, Industrial Growth Center, Mansa Road, Bhatinda.

Registered office: Scope complex, Core-6, 2^nd floor, 7 Lodhi road, New Delhi, through its authorized officer.

                                                                             .….Appellant

 

Versus

 

1.      Rambir S/o Hari Ram S/o Manga R/o Village Sunderpur,Tehsil and District Rohtak.

2.      Chaudhary Agriculture Store Near Old Bus Stand, Hissar Road,rohtak through its Director,/Manager/Proprietor.

 

                                                                             .….Respondents

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Jainainder Saini, Advocate for the appellant.

                    Mr.Satbir Mor, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.1.

Mr. N.K.Malhotra, Advocate counsel for the  respondent No.2.

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 26.08.2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short “District Forum”), Rohtak.

2.      Complainant  purchased sixteen packets of hilfuron herbicide from the opposite party (O.P.) No.1  and he spent Rs.30000/- per acre. He sprayed the said herbicide on his wheat crop according to the direction specified on the above said article, but, after 7-8 days the effect of alleged herbicide was negative and after 15 days entire wheat crop of two acres was completely damaged.  He contacted official of O.P. and requested to compensate him, but, they said that only O.P.No.2 i.e. manufacturer is liable. Complaint was filed with the Deputy Director Agriculture, Rohtak and a committee was constituted to visit and inspect his fields.  Committee of Agriculture Department visited the spot and reported that  95-100% of wheat crop of complainant was destroyed due to use of hilfuron herbicide of batch No.HRF/C-03.  He approached O.P. for compensation, but, to no use.

3.      Opposite parties-appellants filed separate written statements O.P.No.1 controverted his version and alleged that it sold 16 packets of Hilfuron with seals intact. The above-said packets were purchased from M/s Hindustan Insecticides vide invoice dated 24.12.2013.  It was further alleged that no notice was received from the office of Deputy Director Agriculture, Rohtak and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.      O.P.No.2 alleged that it sold bulk quantity of insecticides/herbicides to various dealers/distributors and no complaint of any sort in respect of quality or any other defect in product was received.  Sampling of product was done by the insecticide inspector  and the same was tested by Senior Analyst and found that insecticide was branded with active ingredients contents 74.20%.  Objections about jurisdiction, locus standi, suppressed the material and true facts etc. were raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

5.      After hearing both the parties, the District Forum directed the opposite party No.2 to pay compensation of Rs.47110/- to the complainant  alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint that is 04.03.2014 till its actual realization besides Rs.2500/- as litigation expenses.

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, appellant-opposite party No.2 has preferred this appeal.

7.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

8.      Learned counsel for complainant vehemently argued that as per report Ex.C-2 it is clear in one acre the crop of wheat was destroyed to the extent of 95-100% and in another acre it was destroyed up to 65-70%. The crop was destroyed due to use of pesticides manufactured by appellant-O.P.No.2, so learned District Forum rightly allowed claim and appeal be dismissed.

9.      This argument is of no avail.  No doubt in Ex.C-2 it is mentioned that crop was damaged in two acres, but, it is no-where mentioned that crop was damaged due to use of pesticides manufactured by appellant. Had the crop in these two acres being damaged due to use of this pesticide then the same should have damaged in all the 16/- acres and not only in two acres.  The damage in only two acres can be due to other reasons also such as watering crop, using manure, quality of land etc.  Further Ex.C-2 is an inspection report and not the test report of the pesticide.  It is no-where mentioned that the pesticide was tested and was found defective. When there is no specific report to this effect it cannot be presumed that the pesticide was not proper.  To prove this fact the provisions contained in section 13 (1) (c ) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 should have been complied with. The pesticide should have been sent to the laboratory for test.

10.    Version of the complainant cannot be accepted keeping in view the opinion of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. Vs. Parchuri Narayana, 2009 (1) CPC page 471 wherein it is opined that complainant is supposed to get the quality of the goods determined from competent Authority, which he has failed to do.  It is also opined by Hon’ble National Commission expressed in Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. Vs. Kopolu Sambasiva Rao & Ors. IV (2005) CPJ 47 (NC) that crops can fail due to various reasons viz., poor quality of land, fertilizers, inadequate rainfall or irrigation and also due to poor quality or inadequate or overdose of pesticides/insecticides. Therefore, whether the crop failed due to poor quality of pesticides is required to be proved by reliable evidence.

11.    It is also opined by Hon’ble National Commission expressed in first appeal No.371 of 2005 titled as Syngenta India Ltd. Vs. Velago Narasimha Rao decided on 8th March 2010 that in the absence of proper testing, it cannot be presumed that loss in crop was due to poor pesticides.  In the present case, pesticides in question was never got tested at any stage and for that reason the complainant is not entitled for any compensation.

12.    More so, no notice was given to the manufacturer before testing the pesticide. As per opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in Indian Farmers fertilizers co-operative Vs. Bhup Singh in revision petition No.2144 of 2014 decided on  09.04.2015 such report cannot be relied upon if notice was not issued to O.P. before visit.  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.

7.      In R.P.No.1451 of 2011-Syngenta India Ltd. Vs. P. Chowdaiah, P.Sreenivasulu and Sai Agro Agencies it was observed that inspection without notice to OP is against the principles of natural justice and no reliance was placed on inspection report as it was not supplied to the OP to present his view on the report.  He also placed reliance on the judgment of this commission in R.P.No.4280 to 4282 of 2007-Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd. Vs. Sreenivasa Reddy & Ors. In which it was observed as under:-

“Hon’ble Supreme court in Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs.Sadhu & Anr. II (2005) SLT 569=11 (2005) CPJ 13 SC=(2005) 3 SCC 198 as well as in Mahyco Seeds Co. Ltd. Vs.Basappa Channappa Mooki & Ors. Civil Appeal No.2428/2008, has held that variation in condition of crops need not necessarily be attributed to quality of seeds but to other factors unless there is specific mention in the concerned report about the inferior quality of seeds. The apex court has held that the onus to prove that there was a defect in the seeds was on the complainant.

Report of Agriculture Department in case in hand does   not mentioned about inferior quality of seeds and merely because some of the plants were of low height without any fruit, it cannot be presumed that seeds were mixed with low quality of seeds.

8.      In the light of aforesaid judgments it becomes clear that report obtained by the complainant without notice to OP cannot be relied upon and learned District Forum fell in error while holding deficiency in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal and revision petition is liable to be allowed.”

13.    After observation of Hon’ble National Commission nothing is left to be discussed about this report. When this report cannot be relied upon it cannot be presumed that complainant has suffered any loss.  Learned District Forum failed to take into consideration all these aspects.  So impugned order dated 26.08.2015 is set aside. The appeal is allowed and complaint is dismissed.

14.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the present appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and due verification.

 

March 22nd, 2016

Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.