Per Shri  Bhaskar B. Yogi – Hon’ble President.

1.       Present consumer complaint is file against the pesticide manufacturing company and the retailer for the loss of yield in the crop as per Panchnama issued by Takrar Nivaran Sammiti dated 23.12.2019 praying for Rs.6,00,000/- for loss of crop and Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as costs along with delayed interest @ 18% till realization of amount.

Brief facts of complaint as under:

2.       The opposite party no. 1 -Manufacturer has launched herbicide to control weed namely “Assert” for the removal of weeds /grass in paddy filed. The opposite party no.2 is the proprietor of Ambule Krushi Kendra a retailer of pesticides. The complainants purchased 8 bottles of said herbicide Assert 400 ml. each from opposite party no.2 on 08.09.2019.

3.       It is the case of the complainants that on 08.09.2019 he spread the said herbicide in their agricultural field where the paddy is cultivated. The said work of spreading was done with the help of the labours namely Naresh Anil Dhabale and Bhimraj Bhurkan Ambule. Both these labours completed the spreading work by 5.00 p.m. on 08.09.2019, the complainant fully followed instruction as given in the instructions brochure by opposite party no. 1.

4.       After spreading the Assert herbicide on paddy crop by complainants in their entire 8 acres of land, there was no rain. Accordingly, the complainants were hopeful that the result will be in positive as they completely followed the entire instructions regarding use of Assert.

5.       As per the information brochure of opposite party no. 1, it is provided that the result of Assert will be getting after 10 to 15 days. However, it is shocking moment for the complainants that there is no result found after spreading of the assert in entire 8 acres of land and the weed/grace in the entire 8 acres is remained as it is. Thereafter, the complainants contacted the opposite party no. 2 and narrated about the non- result of assert herbicide. On that, the opposite party no. 2 told to the complainants that he will consult the opposite party no. 1 and whatever instructions that will be provided by the opposite party no. 1, the same will be furnished to the complainants.

6.       The complainants get income Rs. 75,000/- per acre as they cultivate the heavy paddy in their agricultural land. The complainants namely Deaoram Kothuji Ambuly is the owner of agricultural land bearing Gat No. 145, No. 452/1, No. 421/2, of the complainant no. 2- Kothu Dadu Ambule is owner of land Gat no. 450, 261, 259, 256 and the complainant no. 3 Nandram Kothu Ambule is joint owner of land gat no. 450; alongwith Kothu Dadu Ambule. In all these agricultural land they have cultivated the paddy crop namely 'Jai Shriram'. The complainants for the cultivation of the paddy crop in this season in aforesaid agricultural field have incurred expenditure of Rs. 1,60,000/-. However, due to failure of Assert herbicide, the complainants are suffering much more as there will be only 25% crop and 75% crop is ruined due to wild grass as the Assert become ineffective and no result come out after spreading the same in aforesaid agricultural field. Thus, the complainants stated that they are suffered from monetary loss of Rs. 6,00,000/- and for said loss the opposites party are liable and responsible.

7.       On 08.09.2019 when the complainants used the said Assert herbicide in their agricultural field and after 15 days no result arise out of that, it is incumbent upon the opposite’s party to see that the complainant’s grievance would be redressed. However, instead of noticing the grievance, the opposites parties did nothing and even not taken any cognizance about the non- result of the Assert herbicide launched by the opposite party no. 1 and sold by the opposite party no.2.

8.       The complainants are poor agriculturist and their entire livelihood is depending upon the agriculture. However, due to failure result of the opposite's party product Assert, the complainants have been put in grave loss in terms of low yield of paddy crop which they have formulated in terms of loss in aforesaid paras. In fact the opposite's party not only committed cheating against the complainants but also committed unfair trade practice and for which the opposite's party are liable for payment of damages in aforesaid terms.

9.       Therefore, the complainant had issued notice upon the opposite party on 19.10.2019 through Ishwar Choudhary Adv. and thereby called upon the opposite party to pay Rs. 6,00,000/- to him within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice towards the damages. By the said notice, the complainant warned to the opposites party that if they failed to pay the said amount of damages to the complainants, then the complainants will constrained to approach before appropriate forum/ court law for the redressal of their grievance and for the cost and consequences the opposites party shall be liable jointly and severally.

10.     The said notice dt. 19.10.2019 was received by the opposite parties. The opposite party no.2 replied to the said notice by his reply notice dt. 14.11.2019 through his counsel Shri. Ajay Yadov Adv. wherein he falsely claimed that the complainants are trying to defamed them. Since consumer grievance is not settled hence this consumer complaint for the reliefs as prayed in the complaint. Complainant has filed bill dated 08.09.2019, certificate of Police Patil dated 06.10.2019, booklet of Assert, Panchnama conducted by Panchayat Samiti, Tirora showing loss of yield between 15 to 18% and 20-22 % and the area of agriculture 3.28. (pg. no. 18), legal notice and reply copies, extracts of 7/12 property as per land revenue record’s standing on whose name, color photos of farm taken out during inspection of farm by Panchayat Samiti, Tirora.

11.     Complaint was admitted on 02.06.2020 and opposite party no. 2 files his written version on 22.07.2021 and O. P.  No. 1 on 02.12.2021.

12.     O. P. No. 1 has denied the contentions of the complainant and in its Special Submissions mentioned:-

a.       They produce good quality herbicides. The complainant purchased the herbicide batch no. C691517AS2 and stated that he   spread the herbicide Assert brand of penaxulam 2.67% ww in his   paddy field. But to prove the herbicide is of low quality or low potentiality, the burden lie upon the complainant.

b.       Complainant failed to send the Assert brand of penaxulam 2.67% ww to laboratory u/s. 38 (2)(c) for proper analysis. Hence in         absence of laboratory report it cannot be held that the herbicide is of low quality or low potentiality. The complaint is filed on     26.02.2020 and the expiring date of the herbicide was 06.01.2021.     The complainant has not sent the bottle for laboratory analysis          and thus its right to obtain laboratory report is deprived. As per its own laboratory report Assert Herbicides shows of best quality.

c.       Complainant does not followed instruction properly.

d.       Complainant failed to prove computation of loss of Rs. 6,00,000/.

e.       There is no report that loss is due to failure of Assert herbicide it may be due to many other reasons like defective seeds, variety of          seeds etc.

f.       Commission does not have jurisdiction to decide present complaint and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

g.       Opposite party no.1 filed certificate of analysis dated 06.01.2021  and relied upon ruling of Hon’ble Supreme Court in cri. A. No.    1053 of 1999 State of Haryana vs. Unique Farmaid P. Ltd. Ors. decided on 07.10.1999 wherein it as held that valuable right had been conferred on accused to have sample tested from central insecticides laboratory – in such circumstances making them to stand trial would be abuse of process of law – no infirmity in order passed by High Court.

h.       Also filed the details of paddy sold to Govt agency under MSP during the period as on 28.01.2020 (pg. no. 124) and 28.06.2020       onwards (pg. no. 132 onwards). District wise area of production and productivity of rice during the current year showing kharif rice in Gondia pg. no. 165-166 & 167.

13.     O. P. No. 2 has denied the contentions of the complainant and stated as:-

i.        The O. P. No. 2 had not earned too much from the said product and earning is only of Rs. 320/-.

ii.       The complainant had not lodged any complaint about packing, seal or any external defect in the material and had accepted that the packed material is in good condition and therefore no case is made out against the O. P. No. 2 for consumer complaint and the O. P. No 2 is falsely implicated in the matter.

iii.      The complaint had not paid any amount for the product purchased by them and hence they have not rendered or hired any services of O.P's. The sale invoice document no D-1 is invoice showing purchase of product on credit and the said credit amount is not paid till today is lying debited in the books of account of the O.P. No. 2. Thus the present complaint does not fall within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act and hence liable to be dismissed on this count alone.

iv.      The complainant had falsely alleged below para 6 above that complainants get income of Rs 75,000/- per acre as they cultivate heavy paddy namely "Jai Shriram" in their 8 acres of land. The fact is that yield % per acre is not more then 14 to 15 quintals of        paddy and today cost of "Jai Sriram" Paddy is not more than Rs. 2,000/-. Thus actual cost of paddy per acre comes 15 x Rs. 2000/-          Rs. 30,000/-. The above facts proves that the complainants had made misrepresentation before this Hon'ble Commission and tried to exaggerate the claim amount by making false claim and thus the present complaint is not tenable. The claim amount is large then the yield % fixed by the agriculture department and therefore at any cost the loss cannot go beyond the actual cost of Paddy.

v.       The complainant had further falsely claimed that they paid expenditure of Rs. 1,60,000/- while the actual cost of paddy per        acre is for Rs. 30,000/- per acre and total amount is 8 x Rs. 30,000 i.e. Rs. 2,40,000/-. The complainant had not demonstrated how he      suffered losses of Rs. 6,00,000/- while actual cost of yield of Jai Sriram paddy is for only Rs. 2,40,000/-. Hence the claim of       complainant is based upon false hood and misrepresentation and misuse of the provision of law and thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed for misrepresentation and falsehood.

vi.      The complainant had not submitted any document such as purchase bill for Jai Sriram seeds to substantiate their claim that   they had sown seed Jai Sriram during the ensuing period and thus the contentions are misleading.

vii.     As per information available with the O.P. No 2 it is submitted that, the complainant had during ensuing period sold paddy to     Marketing federation under Minimum Support Price Scheme. The procurement of paddy by Govt. agency is for low grade paddy and not for high grade paddy like Jai Sriram which is claimed to have been sowed by complainant as alleged. Hence the contention         of the complainant is not fair and complainant should be compelled to submit books of account and details of paddy sold to Govt. agency under MSP during the ensuing period. This Hon'ble Commission is therefore prayed to call for the records from the Marketing federation to ascertain the quantum of paddy sold by complainant against the given Kh. No during the ensuing period to ascertain the truth in claim lodged by complainant and without that it would be against the principals of natural justice and fair trial.

viii.    O. P. No. 2 further submitted that document D-2 & D-6 is denied in toto and same is not admissible in evidence. The O.P's were not invited during spot inspection and panchnama drawn by Police Patil Smt. Tija Tarendra Ambuley and Panchayat Samiti, Tirora         and therefore documents are not admissible in evidence.        Panchayat Samiti, Tirora is not expert in the matter and therefore the report of the Panchayat Samiti is not conclusive proof of losses claimed by complainant. Thus the claim of the complainant is based upon inadmissible and false documents and therefore the claim is liable to be rejected for the want of lack of documentary evidence in support of claim. The documents annexed with the complaint are denied in toto.

14.     Heard arguments of Ld. advocates for the parties perused the documents filed on records, our findings with reasons are as under:-

-// Findings with Reason //-

ISSUE No. 1 & 2:-

15.     In ruling of Hon’ble National Commission REVISION PETITION NO. 1919 OF 2016 -  Mohinder pal Vs. Kisan Pesticides & anr. Decided on 11.07.2016

It was observed in Para no. 8. On reading of the above report, we find that the Agriculture Development Officer on inspection found that there was loss of yield in the crop and he reported that the Narma crop has been destroyed to the extent of 60% to 70% and the Kapah crop has been destroyed to the extent of 70% to 80%. The Agriculture Development Officer in his report has nowhere stated that the loss of crop was as a result of the use of defective pesticides. No test report of pesticide has been produced on record. Therefore, we do not find any fault with the reasoning of the State Commission that the loss of crop could be due to any reason and not necessarily due to spraying of the pesticides. We do not find any irregularity in the order of the State Commission allowing the appeal, which may call for interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.

Even the ruling filed by the Opposite party no. 2 is applicable as observed in the said ruling of Hon’ble Supreme Court in cri. A. No. 1053 of 1999 State of Haryana vs. Unique Farmaid P. Ltd. Ors. decided on 07.10.1999 wherein it as held that valuable right had been conferred on accused to have sample tested from central insecticides laboratory – in such circumstances making them to stand trial would be abuse of process of law.

Complainant failed to take proper steps as prescribed under section 38 (2) (c) and hence opposite party are deprived from valuable right to prove their innocence.

In present complaint at pg. no. 18 if we observe the panchnama, the word “तणाचे” in the last line भात पिकाचे क्षेत्रात तणाचे प्रमाण वाढल्यामुळे शेतकऱ्यांचे खालील प्रमाणे नुकसान झाल्याचे प्रत्यक्षदर्शी दिसून येत आहे. It seems to be handwritten after words by putting whitener as entire panchnama is typed on computer except this word. Secondly the principle of natural justice is not followed opposite parties representative were not called for panchnama. Even area is shown as only 3.28 and loss in percentage is 15 to 18%  and 20 to 22%. Thus the complainant has made false statement of loss of crop of 75% in Para no. 7 pg. no. 4. The complainant could have taken steps to reduce the loss by taking help of labours if no result shown after 15 -20 days of spreading of herbicide Assert.

Police Patil’s duty are mentioned in THE MAHARASHTRA VILLAGE POLICE ACT, 1967 

Section 6: Subject to the orders of the District Magistrate, the Police-Patil Shall,— (i) act under the orders of any other Executive Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction his village is situated ; (ii) furnish such return and information as may be called for by such Executive Magistrate ; (iii) constantly keep such Executive Magistrate informed as to the state of crime and all matters connected with the village police and the health and general condition of the community in his village ; (iv) afford every assistance in his power to all Police Officers when called upon by them in the performance of their duty ; (v) promptly obey and execute all orders and warrants issued to him by a Magistrate or Police Officer ; (vi) collect and communicate to the Station Officer intelligence affecting the public peace ; (vii) prevent within the limits of his village the commission of offence and public nuisances and detect and bring offenders therein to justice ; (viii) perform such other duties as are specified under other provisions of this Act, and as the State Government may, from time to time, by general or special order specify in this behalf.

Thus, Police Patil is not a competent authority to issue any certificate as produced before as by the complainant.

 Hence Issue No. 1 & 2 are answered In Negative

ISSUE No. 3 & 4:-

16.     Since complainant fail to prove any deficiency in service or defect in quality or potentiality in the herbicide and our finding as discussed above are in negative the Issue No. 3 is also answered in Negative. Therefore following order.

FINAL ORDER

          1.       Complaint dismissed without any costs.

          2.       Certified free copy of this order be provided to the parties as per regulation 21.

          3.       Additional sets of complaint be returned to the complainant and original complaint along with documents be confined                     to record room.

Pronounced on 29^th September, 2022.