Haryana

StateCommission

A/36/2015

TROPICAL AGROSYSTEM(INDIA) PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

THAKAR AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

P.M.GOYAL

28 Aug 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeals No: 36, 78 & 115 of 2015

Date of Institution: 13.01.15; 21.01.15; 04.02.15

Date of Decision:      28.08.2015

Appeal No.36 of 2015

 

Tropical Agro System (India) Private Limited through its authorized representative Vipin Mishra at 905, Vishwadeep Tower, District Centre, Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058. 

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.3

Versus

1.      Thakar

2.      Kehar Singh

3.      Tara Chand, all sons of Shri Ateh Singh, Residents of Village Mangli Aklan, Tehsil and District, Hisar (Hr.)

Respondents-Complainants

 

4.      Shiv Shakti Beej Bhandar through its Proprietor near C.A.V. High School Old Mandi Road, Hisar.

Respoondent-Opposite Party No.1

 

5.      Hindustan Insecticides Limited Registered Office: Scope Complex 46, 2^nd Floor, 7  Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

                                      Respondent-Opposite Party No.2

 

Argued by:                    Shri Hitender Kansal, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Surinder Sheoran, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.

Shri Madhu Ranjan, Advocate for respondent No.4.

Shri Jainander Saini, Advocate for respondent No.5.

 

Appeal No.78 of 2015

 

Hindustan Insecticides Limited Registered Office Scope Complex 46, 2^nd Floor, 7 Lodhi Road, New Delhi, through its Authorised Officer.  

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.2

Versus

1.      Thakar

2.      Kehar Singh

3.      Tara Chand, all sons of Shri Ateh Singh, Residents of Village Mangli Aklan, Tehsil and District, Hisar (Hr.)

Respondents-Complainants

 

4.      Shiv Shakti Beej Bhandar near C.A.V. High School, Old Mandi Road, Hisar, through its proprietor.  

Respoondent-Opposite Party No.1

 

5.      Tropical Agro System (India) Private Limited H.No.72, Marshal Road,  4^th Floor Raja Annamallai Building Chennai. 

 

                                      Respondent-Opposite Party No.3

 

Present:              Shri Jainander Saini, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Surinder Sheoran, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.

Shri Madhu Ranjan, Advocate for respondent No.4.

Shri Hitender Kansal, Advocate for respondent No.5.

 

Appeal No.115 of 2015

 

1.      Thakar

2.      Kehar Singh

3.      Tara Chand, all sons of Shri Fateh Singh, Residents of Village Mangli Aklan, Tehsil and District, Hisar (Hr.)

Appellants-Complainants

 

Versus

1.     Shiv Shakti Beej Bhandar near C.A.V. High School, Old Mandi Road, Hisar through its Proprietor.  

2.     Hindustan Insecticides Limited, Registered Office Scope Complex 46, IInd Floor, 7 Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

 

3.      Tropical Agro System (India) Private Limited H.No.72, Marshal Road, 4^th Floor Raja Annamallai Building, Chennai. 

. 

Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

Present:              Shri Surinder Sheoran, Advocate for appellants.

Shri Madhu Ranjan, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Shri Jainander Saini, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Shri Hitender Kansal, Advocate for respondent No.3.

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                              

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This order shall dispose of afore-mentioned three appeals bearing No.36,78 and 115 of 2015 having arisen out of the common order dated December 4^th, 2014, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Hisar, whereby Consumer Complaint No.178 of 2013 filed by Thakar and others-complainants, seeking compensation for damage of his Guar Crop due to spray of pesticide, manufactured and supplied by opposite parties, was allowed, directing the opposite parties as under:-

“……..this complaint is hereby allowed, with a direction to the opposite parties, to pay Rs.8,95,000/- to the complainants in equal share, with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 25.04.2013 till payment. Complainants are also hereby allowed compensation of Rs.10,000/- for their harassment, mental agony etc and litigation expenses of Rs.2200/- against all the opposite parties, who shall be jointly and severely liable to comply the order. However, primary responsibility to comply the order shall be of opposite parties No.2 and 3. In case compliance of the order is made by opposite party No.1, then in that eventuality, opposite party No.1 shall be entitled to get the amount back from opposite parties No.2 and 3 jointly and severely, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of compliance till the date of recovery from opposite parties No.2 and 3.”

2.      Appeals No.36 and 78 of 2015 have been filed by Tropical Agro System (India) Private Limited-Opposite Party No.3 and Hindustan Insecticides Limited-Opposite Party No.2 respectively. Appeal No.115 of 2015 has been filed by complainants for enhancement of compensation.

3.      Complainants-Thakar, Kehar Singh and  Tara Chand, purchased Herbicide, that is, three litres Hilmala contained in six cartons( 500 ml x 6) for Rs.690/- and 55 packets of 6 grams each Tagmycin for Rs..1650/-, totaling Rs.2340/- from Shiv Shakti Beej Bhandar, Hisar-Opposite Party No.1, vide receipt Exhibit C-1. The pesticide was manufactured by Tropical Agro System India Private Limited-Opposite Party No.3. He sprayed the same upon his Guar Crop in about 18 acres land for the betterment of crop and to destroy the unwanted plants (Kharpatwar). After spraying the aforesaid herbicide, not only it was found ineffective, but his total crop was destroyed. The complainant made complaint to the Deputy Director Agriculture, Hisar vide application (Annexure C-2) following which a Committee of Agriculture Experts consisting of Assistant Plant Protection Officer, Subject Specialist (T&I) and Block Agriculture Officer, Hisar, was constituted who inspected the crop of the complainant and submitted their report Annexure C-4. It was observed by the Committee of the agriculture experts that the Guar Crop of the complainants was affected and damaged to the extent of 80-90% due to the spray of the pesticides used by him. It was also observed that Phalies (beans) on the plants were smaller. The complainants approached the opposite parties to pay the compensation but to no avail.

4.      The complainants filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.

5.      The opposite parties contested the complaint and filed their written statements denying the averments made by the complainant. It was stated that the pesticides was not sprayed by the complainants as per the norms and instructions given by them. None of the opposite parties was called at the time of inspection. Taking shelter of Section 13(1(C) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.

6.      On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence brought on the record, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed complaint and issued direction to the opposite parties as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

7.      Two fold argument was raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. Firstly, that the pesticide was not meant for growth of the Guar Crop, as alleged, rather it was to kill insects. Secondly, that there is no report of any laboratory that the pesticide was adulterated or mis-branded.

8.      As regard to misbranding and adulteration of the pesticde, it is specifically mentioned in the complaint that he had purchased the pesticide and used the same on the advice of the opposite party No.1, that is, a representative/dealer of the opposite parties No.2 and 3. Nothing contrary to this fact has come on the record to suggest that the complainants were not advised by them to spray the pesticide in question. The report of the Expert Committee (Annexure C-3) is on the file and the same supports complainants’ claim. It is clearly mentioned in this report that during inspection of the fields, it was noticed that the number of plants in the fields were average, growth of plants was less than the required and the leaves of plants had fallen down. There was loss of crop to the extent of 80-90%. When the complainants had used the pesticide on the advice of the representative of the opposite parties and the crop having been destroyed due to use of pesticide, certainly the allegations of complainant against the opposite parties stand substantiated.

9.      As a sequel to the above said evidence, it is fully established on the record that the Guar crop of the complainants was damaged due to defective pesticide which was purchased by them from the opposite parties.

10.    In view of the above, this Commission does not find   any illegality in the impugned order. The opposite parties have rightly been held liable to pay compensation to the complainants. So far as the compensation awarded to the complainants, the District Forum has adequately compensated them and no case for interference is made out. Hence, all the three appeals are dismissed.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- each deposited at the time of filing appeals No.36 and 78 of 2015 be refunded to the complainants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 28.08.2015

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL