1.      The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section ­­­21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against the order dated 04.07.2017, passed by the learned Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (‘State Commission’) in FA No. 1061/2016, wherein the Appeal filed by the OP-2 (Respondent No.1 herein) was allowed and the Order dated 16.09.2016, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (“District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No.69 of 2016 was set aside.

2.      For clarity, the parties are referred to as stated in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum. Ram Chander denoted as the Complainant (Petitioner herein) and whereas Adama India Pvt. Ltd. Is referred to as OP-2 (Respondent No.1 herein) and M/s. Krishna Trading Co. referred to as OP-1 (Respondent No.2 herein).

3.      The facts of the case in brief, as per the Complainant, are that he leased 6 acres of agricultural land for ₹30,000 per acre from Ram Parsad and others, where he sowed paddy crops. After noticing that the crops were affected by disease, the complainant purchased 14 litres of Valigan and 1 KG of Topmast pesticides from Respondent No.1 and sprayed on the crops on 07.10.2015. However, on 08.10.2015, the complainant discovered that his entire paddy crop had been burnt. Consequently, he filed an application with the Sub-Divisional Agricultural Officer in Gohana on 09.10.2015. A committee was constituted to investigate the matter. According to their report, 80-90% of the paddy crop was damaged. The complainant requested compensation of ₹4,20,000 from the OPs. But, his effort including a legal notice, went unanswered. He thus filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging respondents of deficiency in service.

4.      The Respondents submitted a joint written statement denying liability and contended that OP-1 did not prescribe Topmast pesticide for paddy crops and claimed that the complainant was at fault for using it incorrectly. According to the respondents, the Valigan pesticide was not used as per the prescribed instructions, and the Topmast pesticide's packaging specifically listed the crops for which it was intended, which did not include paddy. Therefore, OPs asserted that the complainant was responsible for the damage caused to his crops due to improper use of the pesticides. The OPs further claimed that the complainant, with the assistance of a revenue officer, fabricated a false report to seek compensation. They argued that the damage could have been caused by various factors such as climatic conditions or improper pesticide application, and thus, they were not at fault. The OPs sought dismissal of the complaint, stating that the complainant was not entitled to any compensation for the alleged damage.

5.      The learned District Forum vide Order dated 16.09.2016, allowed the complaint with the following findings:

   “In our view, the respondents have sold the wrong medicine which was used by the complainant on his paddy crop and due to the use of the said medicine, the paddy crop of the complainant were burnt thereby causing a huge financial loss to the complainant. The complainant by way of present complaint has claimed Rs.4,20,000/-, which in our view is on a very higher side and excessive. However, we hereby direct the respondents to make the payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs.two lacs) in lumpsum to the complainant for causing loss towards the paddy crop, mental agony, harassment, deficient service and under the head of litigation expenses.

  With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.”         

6.      Aggrieved by the Order of the District Forum, the OP-2 (Respondent No.1 herein) filed an Appeal No. 1061/2016 and the learned State Commission vide order dated 04.07.2017 allowed the Appeal and set aside the Order of the District Forum, as follows: -

“4.      Against the impugned order, the OP/appellant has filed appeal before us reiterating their stand as taken by them before the District Forum.  Similarly, the respondent has also reiterated the same submissions and allegations as made by him before the District Forum. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also analytically gone through the record. From the perusal of the record following material record stand established;-

i)  No documentary evidence has been produced by the Respondent-complainant to prove the identity of the land alleged to have been taken by him on leave for sowing the paddy crops. Even the report of the Agriculture Officer, Gohana does not mention this fact at all especially how much land was under paddy and in which the medicine in question was spray by the complainant.

ii) The complainant did not comply with the instructions written on the packet indicating clearly the names of the crops for which the medicine Valigan pesticide was to be used. When the name of paddy crops was not included in these crops the complainant was himself at fault for having use and sprayed the same for his paddy crop.

iii) The officers who are said to have inspected the land in question did not associate the appellants at the time of inspection nor did they issue any to notice to them,

iv)  The complainant-respondent has not produced any expert opinion to substantiate his allegations, nor were any samples taken or produced for this purpose.

5.  That by now it has been settled by the Hon'ble National Commission that in case titled Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. Versus Kopolu Sambasiva Rao and Ors 2005 (4) CPJ, Page 47 as under:-

10. Crops can fall due to various reasons viz., poor quality of seeds, fertilizers, inadequate rainfall or irrigation, and also due to poor quality or inadequate or overdose of pesticides/insecticides. Therefore, whether the cotton crop failed due to poor quality of insecticides is required to be proved by reliable evidence or the procedure prescribed by law. In this connection, it would be useful to go through Section 13 (1) (C), Consumer Protection Act for sending the samples to the analysis. This was not done."

 The above stated observations would fully apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case, because in this case, the complainant has failed to produce any evidence on record to establish that he had used the right medicine strictly in accordance with instructions printed on the packets. Further in this case also the complainant at no stage had produced the sample before the District forum.

6. Therefore, following the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission, we find merit in the appeal and allow the same by dismissing the Complaint with no order as to costs.”

7.      Dissatisfied by the Impugned Order dated 04.07.2017, the Complainant/Petitioner filed the instant RP No. 3269 of 2017.

8.      In his arguments, the learned Counsel for Petitioner/ Complainant reiterated the key points from the revision petition and emphasized that the report prepared by the four-member committee of agricultural officers, which detailed that 80-90% of the paddy crops were damaged due to the medicines provided by the OPs, was not properly considered by the State Commission. He argued that the authenticity of the agricultural officers' report could not be questioned and should have been given appropriate weight in the proceedings. Additionally, the counsel pointed out that the OPs were given sufficient opportunities to inspect the fields, even after a legal notice was served on 23.11.2015. Despite receiving notice and replying on 08.12.2015, the OPs did not take proper action. He further argued that OP-1, M/s Krishna Trading Company, which sold the medicine to complainant, did not challenge the District Forum's order dated 16.02.2016. As this order remains unchallenged and operative, OP-1 did not file any affidavit or present any evidence in its defence. Therefore, the averments in the complaint remain uncontested by OP-1. The Counsel for the Petitioner requested that the Revision Petition be allowed and that the impugned order of the State Commission be set aside in light of the evidence and the failure of the respondents to effectively challenge the claims.

9.      In his arguments, the learned Counsel for OP-2/ Respondent No.1 reiterated the findings of the State Commission and argued that the State Commission was correct in allowing the appeal for reasons of Misuse of Topmast Pesticide, which was not recommended for paddy crops. The complainant did not adhere to the instructions provided on the product. The responsibility lies with the complainant for misusing the product, as Topmast was not intended for paddy crops. Further, the complainant did not follow the prescribed method for applying the pesticide. This improper application further contributed to the crop damage. No clear information was provided by the complainant regarding the method used for spraying, as evidenced by the examination report.  He further contended that the respondent had explicitly stated in its bill-book that the customer would be responsible for any adverse results caused by improper use of the pesticide. Despite this, the complainant used the product incorrectly. He asserted that the learned District Forum wrongly concluded that the pesticide, meant for controlling mildew on papaya and scab on apple, should have worked on paddy crops. The complainant purchased the pesticide for paddy crops, but the instructions did not indicate it was suitable for that crop. He further contended that the principle of "caveat emptor" (let the buyer beware) applies in this case. The complainant failed to read and adhere to the instructions provided with the pesticide. The complainant’s negligence in ensuring the suitability of the pesticide for paddy crops precludes him from blaming the OPs. The instructions for using Topmast clearly specify that the product is recommended for crops such as papaya, apple, tomato, and bottle gourd. There is no mention of paddy crops, further reinforcing that the complainant used the product inappropriately.

10.    OP-1/respondent No.2 did not appear despite service of notice and therefore, he was placed ex-parte vide order dated 09.05.2024.

11.    I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for both the parties.

12.    It is undisputed that the Complainant who is a farmer had sowed paddy crops in 6 acres of leased land. After noticing disease affecting the crops, he purchased 14 litres of Valigan and 1 KG of Topmast pesticides from OP-2 and sprayed on 07.10.2015. On 08.10.2015, he noticed that his entire paddy crop was burnt. He represented to the Sub-Divisional Agricultural Officer, Gohana on 09.10.2015 and a committee was constituted to investigate the matter. The report revealed that 80-90% of the paddy crop was damaged due to medicines provided by OPs. OP-1, who sold the medicine to complainant, did not challenge the District Forum's order dated 16.02.2016. On the other hand, It is the specific contention of OPs that they did not prescribe Topmast pesticide for paddy and it was the Complainant’s fault as Valigan was not used as per the prescribed instructions, and Topmast is specifically listed the crops for which it was intended, which did not include paddy. OPs asserted that he himself was responsible for the damage to his crops due to improper use of pesticides. They alleged that the complainant, with assistance of a revenue officer, fabricated a false report to seek compensation. As per OPs, the State Commission was correct in allowing the appeal for misuse of Topmast pesticide which was not recommended for paddy. The complainant did not adhere to the usage instructions and thus responsible for its misuse. He also did not follow the procedure prescribed for application, further leading to the damage. The bills issued specifically state that the customer is responsible for any adverse results caused due to improper pesticide usage. His negligence in ensuring the suitability of the pesticide for paddy crops precluded him from blaming OPs.

13.    It is a matter of record that the complainant did not produce necessary evidence to prove the identity of the land in question where the paddy crop was sowed. Also, the report of the Agriculture Officer does not mention the details as to how much land was under paddy cultivation and in which portion of the land the pesticide in question was used by the complainant. It is also not established that the pesticides used were in fact prescribed for paddy and that the complainant complied with usage instructions. When the name of paddy crop was not specifically included for paddy, its usage by the complainant itself is questionable. In any case, neither any samples were collected nor any expert opinion to substantiate the allegations has been produced by the complainant. Crops failure can occasion due to multiple reasons such as poor quality seeds, fertilizers, excessive/ inadequate rainfall or irrigation, poor quality or wrong usage of pesticides/insecticides etc. For deficiency in service or unfair trade practice to be established, these aspects need to be proved by reliable evidence or the procedure prescribed by law, including sending the samples to the analysis, which was not done.

14.    In view of the foregoing deliberations, the complainant failed to produce any evidence to establish that he had used the pesticides prescribed for paddy crops and followed the usage procedure strictly in accordance with the instructions specified. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the detailed and well reasoned order dated 04.07.2017 passed by the learned State Commission. The Revision Petition No. 3269 of 2017 is, therefore, dismissed.  

15.    There shall be no orders as to costs.

16.    All pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.