STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Date of Institution: 21.05.2019
Date of final hearing: 24.07.2024
Date of pronouncement: 13.09.2024
First Appeal No.501 of 2019
Sewa Singh S/o Sh. Kapoor Singh, R/o Village Malkheri, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal. ....Appellant
Versus
- M/s Subhash & Company, Insecticides, Pesticides, Seeds & Fertilizers, Canara Bank, Chaatrawas Road, Kaithal.
- Bayer Crop Science Ltd. Ist Floor, Delta Square, Sector-25, MG Road, Gurgaon-122002. …..Respondents
CORAM: Sh. Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member.
Sh. S.C. Kaushik, Member.
Argued by:- Mr. Kuldip Singh, counsel for appellant.
Mr. S.C. Thatai, counsel for respondents.
ORDER
NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Challenge in this appeal No.501 of 2019 has been invited by unsuccessful complainant, to the legality of order dated 18.04.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-Kaithal (In short “District Consumer Commission”) in complaint case No.64 of 2018, vide which his complaint has been dismissed.
2. Complainant has alleged that: he purchased 4 packets of pesticide “Atlantis (Bayer)” Batch No.B-237 for Rs.1,760/- from OP No.1 vide invoice No.16792 dated 18.12.2015. After purchasing pesticide, he spread it on his wheat crops, in proper manner. After 2-3 days from spreading pesticides, his wheat crop was 50-60% damaged and changed in yellow colour due to defective pesticide. He approached Deputy Agriculture Officer-Kaithal on 25.01.2016. On 28.01.2016, APPO-Kaithal inspected his fields and reported that loss of wheat crop of complainant is 50-60%. It is pleaded that Sub-Division Agriculture Department-Kaithal took sample of same batch of pesticide from shop of OP No. 1; sealed it with signature of complainant and forwarded it to laboratory for analysis. Complainant has alleged that he suffered loss of Rs.1,760/- as cost of pesticide and financial loss amounting to Rs.72,000/- (Rs.18,000/- per acre).
3. Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed joint written statement by pleading that: complaint is not maintainable. It has been filed with mala-fide intention by concealing true and material facts. District Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction. OPs have admitted bill dated 18.12.2015 (purchase of 4 packet of Atlantis pesticide for Rs.1,760/-) being matter of record. Complainant has not mentioned, as on what date, he had sprayed ‘Atlantis Pesticide’. Complainant did not contact OPs. No notice was given to OPs regarding inspection of field of complainant. Pesticide supplied to complainant by dealer (OP No. 1) was in sealed pack and in ‘OK’ condition as supplied by manufacturer (OP No.2). It is pleaded that OPs have not received any report of sample. It has attached analysis of ‘Atlantis Pesticide’ along with its written version and pleaded that it is best pesticide of manufacturer. By pleading that there is no deficiency on part of OPs, dismissal of complaint has been prayed.
4. Parties to this lis led evidence, oral as well as documentary.
5. On subjectively analyzing the same; learned District Consumer Commission-Kaithal, vide order dated 18.04.2019 has dismissed the complaint, thereby giving rise to filing of this appeal by complainant.
6. Learned counsel appearing for both parties have been heard at length. With their able assistance; record too has been perused.
7. Learned counsel for complainant/appellant has urged that: learned District Consumer Commission has committed gross illegality to non-suit the complainant. It is urged that pesticide supplied to complainant was of inferior quality which is proved from inspection report regarding wheat crop of his fields so conducted by authorities reflecting 50-60% loss. It is urged that complainant was not associated at the time when sample was tested in Government of India Laboratory and as such report is not binding on complainant.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for OPs has supported the order dated 18.04.2019 passed by Learned District Consumer Commission by urging that: it is outcome of proper appreciation of all relevant facets of the case and same does not warrant any interference in this appeal. It is urged that the specification of Atlantis product reflect that it is of best quality and the complainant might have faulted in spraying the same optimally on his wheat crop. Further it is urged that sample report of Government of India Laboratory has not reflected any inferiority in the quality of ‘Atlantis Pesticide’.
9. Inspection Report Ex.C-3 bears signature of Agriculture Plant Protection Officer-Kaithal and its office seal/stamp, signature of Assistant Development Officer and Quality Control Inspector-Office of Deputy Director-Kaithal. Integral part of its report recites that: on conducting spot inspection at the fields of appellant/complainant on 28.01.2016; the above constituted team had found approximate loss to the crop of complainant at 50-60% level and also noticed that colour of crop has turned yellow. Phraseology of this report further states that: in the presence of farmer (complainant/appellant); the team had collected sample of the Batch of ‘Atlantis Pesticide’ by taking it from dealer and send it for its laboratory examination and the necessary action would be taken under Pesticide Act-1968 on receipt of findings of laboratory’s analysis of sample. Laboratory report of Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine & Storage NH-4, Faridabad (Haryana) is Ex.C-5. This report depicts remarks of sample in following terms:-
“The sample conforms to the relevant specification in the test conducted.”
This finding of Government of India Laboratory has effectively clinched the controversy and has become formidable and acceptable base. There is no iota of doubt to discard and brush aside the same. In any case, this report has attired a character of an expert evidence and same cannot be disbelieved. May be, the field inspection report dated 28.01.2016 is silent about the opportune time for spray of pesticide in question on wheat crop, yet that fact, ipso-facto will not nullify the Government of India Report (Ex.C-5), which in any case conforms to quality of ‘Atlantis Pesticide’ in question. Ancillary contention of learned counsel for the complainant/appellant is that he (complainant) was not called at the premises of Government of India laboratory, and at time meant for analysis of sample, therefore, the report is not binding on him. This farfetched contention of learned counsel for appellant/complainant is whimsical in nature, hypothetical too, and of trite value. Same deserves to be repelled for obvious reason that sample of concerned Batch of Atlantis Pesticide was taken by the Agriculture Department Inspection team on 28.01.2016 in the very presence of complainant. Complainant must be carrying idea about the purpose of taking sample from Batch of Atlantis Pesticide. He is not so novice and neophyte as he has pretended himself to be.
10. In the wake of above subjective and critical discussion; this Commission does see any illegality or perversity in the well reasoned order dated 18.04.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Commission-Kaithal. There is no fallacy on the part of learned District Consumer Commission-Kaithal while dismissing complainant’s complaint through order dated 18.04.2019. Complainant has been rightly non-suited. Accordingly, order dated 18.04.2019 is maintained, affirmed and upheld. Present appeal, being devoid on merits, is hereby dismissed.
11. Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
12. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
13. File be consigned to record room.
Date of pronouncement: 13th September, 2024.
S.C. Kaushik Naresh Katyal
Member Judicial Member
Addl. Bench Addl. Bench
