Per Hon’ble DR. S.K. Kakade, Presiding Member. 

1)    This is an appeal filed by M/s. Insecticides India Limited against the order passed by learned Additional District Consumer Commission Nagpur in Consumer Complaint No.CC/16/2012 in which the complaint filed by one Mr.Ashok Raut against the appellant was partly allowed directing the appellants to pay compensation towards loss of the soyabeen crop due to sprinkling of insecticide manufactured and sold to the original complainant.

2)    Brief facts of this appeal are as follows.

          The respondent/original complainant who is farmer sowed soyabeen in the sugarcane farm in the month of July 2015. The complainant used 10.18 acre of his land for this purpose. The respondent/original complainant purchased pesticides from the appellants on 09/08/2015 and 10/08/2015 and sprinkled the pesticides immediately on 10/08/2015 and 11/08/2015. Subsequently it was observed that the soyabeen crop was completely burnt and on 18/08/2015 the officers of appellant No.2 who is manufacturer of pesticides found that the soyabeen crop was completely burnt. The concerned officer agreed that it was due to pesticide the crop was burnt and hence the company will compensate. The complainant calculated the loss to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-, but inspite of the further communicating to the complainant, the appellants/original O.Ps. did not compensate the farmer who is original respondent in this appeal.

3)      In the complaint filed by the farmer the respondents in this appeal, present appellants were duly represented by the advocate and complaint was defended before the Additional District Consumer Commission Nagpur. The learned District Commission came to the conclusion that it was because of this pesticide the entire crop of soyabeen was burnt and directed the present appellants to pay total compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- with the rate of interest 6% p.a. and this order was passed against this O.P.No.2 and hence aggrieved O.P.No.2 approached this Commission in this appeal.

4)      As per submissions of the advocate for appellant that the land was belonging to the brother of complainant though the complainant himself purchased the pesticide and used in the same farm, the present complainant can not be a consumer. The learned advocate for the appellant invited our attention to the document No.7 page No.38 in which his brother Kawaduji Dhoble, aged 80 years assigned the land to the complainant Ashok Raut for farming by contract in the year 2014. Further as per panchanama (page No.44) it is mentioned that the complainant was (wahiwatdar) means he was using the farm or farming. Further as per page No.69 on which the leaflet of using the insecticide and the detail instructions of how to use the insecticide. As per the submission of the learned advocate for appellant, the respondent/complainant did not follow the instruction given in the leaflet, in the effect soyabeen crop was burnt.

5)      The learned advocate for the respondent/original complainant submitted that finding no instruction for using the insecticide/pesticide purchase the original complainant sprinkled the said drug on the soyabeen with the effect that all the soyabeen crop was burnt. 

6)     Further the complainant is farmer and consumer as he is farming on the land of his brother with legally signed contract and that the order passed by the learned District Consumer Commission Nagpur is just reasonable and legal. Hence he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

7)      In our view the original complainant and the respondent in the appeal was consumer since he was farming on the land by way of due authorisation of contract. He was the purchaser of the pesticide and hence he was the consumer. On perusal of the order passed by the learned District Consumer Commission Nagpur the learned District Consumer Commission has rightly considered all the relevant documents, communications and the reasoning for passing the order infavour of original complainant, we find no error in the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional District Consumer Commission Nagpur. In view of the same we pass the following order.

//ORDER//

i.        Appeal is hereby dismissed with cost to quantified to Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the appellant to the respondent No.1, within two month from the receipt of copy of this order.

ii.       Copy of order be furnished to both the parties free of cost.