Haryana

Karnal

CC/529/2019

Mehar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Agri Science India Limited - Opp.Party(s)

R.K. Sharma

02 Aug 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                         Complaint No. 529 of 2019

                                                          Date of instt.19.08.2019

                                                          Date of Decision 02.08.2022

 

Mehar Singh son of Kapoor Singh, d/o Dera Balgan, Bambher hedi Road, village Bansa, Tehsil and District Karnal.

 

                                                …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     M/s Agri Science India Ltd. through its Managing Director, 150, Industrial Area, Baddi, District Solan (Himachal Pradesh).

 

2.     M/s Goyal Traders through its Sole Proprietor Shri Rajesh Goyal, Shop no.324, New Grain Market, Karnal.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before:  Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…..Member

       

 Argued by: Shri R.K. Sharma, counsel for complainant.

                    Shri Virender Sachdeva, counsel for the OPs.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                        The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as to ‘OPs’) on the averments that OP no.1 is the manufacturer of pesticides Trophy and herbicides modish and the OP no.2 is the dealer of OP no.1 and is selling the said pesticides/herbicides. The complainant purchased abovesaid pesticides from OP no.2 for better yield crop by destroying the ‘mandusi’ grown in the agriculture fields after sowing the crops. OP no.2 charged Rs.250/- per packet for the sale of pesticides Trophy and Rs.280/- pr packet for the sale of modish. The complainant purchased 46 packets of Trophy (Batch no.AS1491) and 12 packets of modish (Batch no.MSC79/06) to destroy the herbicides grown in the land of the complainant to get the better yields of the wheat crops in the fields. The complainant spread the herbicides in the wheat crop in land measuring 23 acres as per the specifications given in the level/leaflet as advised by OP no.2. The spray of herbicides made by the complainant did not destroy the Mandusi grown in the land and damaged was caused to the wheat crop of the complainant due to substandard quality of herbicides/pesticides supplied by OP no.2 and manufactured by OP no.1. The complainant approached the OP no.2 with his grievance but OP no.2 did not care for the complaint lodged by the complainant. Thereafter, complainant approached the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal with a complaint regarding the low quality herbicides supplied by OP no.2 and to assess the loss caused to the wheat crop of the complainant due to inferior quality of herbicides sold by OP no.2. The Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal constituted a committee to visit the land of the complainant and inspected the wheat crop sown in the land measuring 23 acres at village Bansa. The committee constituted the Deputy Director Agriculture found that the Mandusi herbicides grown in the fields were much more in the fields even after the spray of herbicides in the land. The damaged will be caused to the wheat crop as the Mandusi has not been destroyed after the spray of herbicides in the fields. The committee submitted the report to the Deputy Director Agriculture on 01.03.2019. The committee invited the OP no.2 to join the inspection at the site but OP no.2 did not join the committee for inspection of crops of the complainant. The complainant informed the committee that the herbicides were sprayed in the fields as per specification and advice given the leaflet/label and as per advice given by OP no.2, the spray was made from 10.01.2019 to 13.01.2019 by the complainant in his fields. Due to supply of inferior quality herbicides, complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.4,60,000/-. Hence, complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OPs to pay the compensation of damages crop of the complainant i.e. Rs.4,60,000/-and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of labour charges incurred in the sowing of the crops, Rs.14,860/-paid in cash for the purchase of herbicides, Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony  and harassment and Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs as well as penalty of Rs.50,000/- may be imposed upon the OPs for selling the low quality pesticides to the customer alongwith 12% interest from the date of complaint till its realization.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction; locus standi; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complaint filed by the complainant is legally not maintainable because complainant has not sent the seed for analysis nor has he stated anything with regard to the result of such analysis, so in the absence of Laboratory tests or analysis about the standards of pesticides as was no tag or label was produced by the complainant which was very much mandatory and essential to verify the quality of pesticides which was sprayed by the complainant in his fields. In the absence of tag and label of the pesticides, it is impossible and difficult to come at the conclusion that a pesticide which was sown by the complainant in his fields was belonging to the OPs. Further, non-compliance of the rule 23(A) (amended) of the Seed Rules 1974 the present complaint deserves to be dismissed. According to the said Act if a farmer has lodged a complaint in writing that the failure of crop due to defective quality of pesticides of any notified kind of variety supplied to him the Seed Inspector shall take in his possession the marks or labels, the seed containers and a sample of un-used seeds to the extent possible from the complaint for establishing the source of supply of pesticides and shall investigate the cause of failure of his crop by sending samples of the I.O. to the Seed Analyst for detailed analysis at the State Seeds Testing Laboratory. It is further pleaded that a director issued by the Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula to all the Deputy Director, Agriculture in the state vide memo no.52-70 dated 03.01.2002 regarding the inspection of farmer fields on receipt of a complaint regarding sale of poor quality seeds, the brief facts of this letter is “it has been reported by the some seeds producing Distributors agent that field of complaints farmers are inspected by the office of the Agriculture Department without associating the representative of the concern seeds company”. But in the present case while inspection of the fields of the complainant, no representative of the OPs has been associated, hence the report if any prepared in the absence of the representative of OPs is having no legal value in the eyes of law. It is further pleaded that there was a very big lot of the pesticides which has been manufactured and sold in the market but there is not even a single complaint regarding alleged dispute except the present complaint. It is further pleaded that herbicides supplied by the OPs is of superior quality. The complainant has not suffered any kind of loss due to any fault on the part of the OPs as there is no problem in the product of the OPs. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1, copy of bill dated 07.01.2019 Ex.C2, copy of Report of Agriculture Department Ex.C3, copy of application to Agriculture Department Ex.C4, affidavit of Lakhwinder Singh Ex.C5, copy of Jamabandi for the year 2015-2016 Ex.C6, copy of khasra girdawari Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on 29.09.2021 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Surinder Kumar Managing Director Ex.R1, copy of detail list of product sold by the OPs Ex.OP1 and Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on 08.06.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant purchased the pesticides from OP no.2 for destroying the ‘mandusi’ grown in this agriculture fields. The complainant sprayed the pesticides in 23 acres of the wheat crops, as per the specifications given in the level/leaflet of the OPs. The spray of pesticides has not destroyed the Mandusi grown in the land and loss was caused to the wheat crop of the complainant due to substandard quality of herbicides/pesticides supplied by OP no.2. Then complainant made a complaint before Deputy Director Agriculture Karnal for the inspection of the crop, who constituted the committee and said committee inspected the crop of the complainant and observed that the loss occurred due to the inferior quality of pesticides. Complainant occurred huge loss and prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for OP, while reiterating the contents of written version has vehemently argued that the inspection report dated 14.02.2019 prepared behind the back of representative of the OPs, which is against the law. He further argued that complainant has not sent the said pesticides for  analysis nor and in the absence of Laboratory tests or analysis about the standards of pesticides, it is impossible and difficult to come at the conclusion that a pesticide which was sprayed by the complainant in his fields was belonging to the OPs. Further, non-compliance of the rule 23(A) (amended) of the Seed Rules 1974 the present complaint deserves to be dismissed. According to the said Act if a farmer has lodged a complaint in writing that the failure of crop occurred due to defective quality of pesticides the Seed Inspector shall take in his possession the marks or labels, the seed containers and a sample of un-used seeds to the extent possible from the complaint for establishing the source of supply of pesticides and shall investigate the cause of failure of his crop by sending samples of the I.O. to the Seed Analyst for detailed analysis at the State Seeds Testing Laboratory. He further argued that there was a very big lot of the pesticides which has been manufactured and sold in the market but there is not even a single complaint regarding the alleged dispute except the present complaint. He further argued that pesticides supplied by the OPs are of superior quality. The complainant has not suffered any kind of loss due to any fault on the part of the OPs as there is no defect in the product of the OPs. Learned counsel for the OPs relied upon the authorities in case titled as Somnath Kashinath Ghodse Versus Vilas Gangaram Jattap and another MANU/QT/0026/2009; Sonekaran Gladioli Growers Vs. Babu Ram MANU/CF/0028/2005 and American Hybrid Seeds and Anr. Versus Vijay Kumar Shankarrao and Anr. MANU/CF/0307/2005 and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.                  It is evident from the cash memo Ex.C2 dated 07.01.2019 that the complainant has purchased the Trophy and herbicides modish from the OP no.2 and has paid amount of Rs.14860/-. As Mandusi was not properly destroyed and  complainant moved an application before Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal and Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal constituted a committee who inspected the filed of the complainant on  14.02.2019 and prepared its report Ex.C3. In the said report it has been observed that even after one month of spray there were lots of Mandusi weeds in the field due to which there is a probability of loss in the wheat crops.

11.           The OP has taken a plea that the agriculture report prepared by the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal, in the absence of representative of the OPs, is not admissible in the eyes of law. It has been specially mentioned in the inspection report Ex. C-3, that at the time of inspection, committee had telephonically called the    representative of the OPs but none has come forward. Hence plea taken by the OPs has no force.

12.           The next plea taken by the OPs is that there is not even a single complaint regarding the alleged dispute i.e. supply of poor quality pesticides except the present complaint. To prove its case OPs have placed on record, copy of detail list of product sold by the as OPs Ex.R2 and Ex.R3. Meaning thereby, there was a very big lot of the pesticides which has been manufactured and sold in the market by the OPs but there is not even a single complaint regarding alleged dispute except the present complaint. It means that pesticides supplied by the OPs are of superior quality and or not of inferior quality.

13.           The onus to prove his case lies upon the complainant, but complainant has miserably failed to prove his case by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. The complainant has only relied upon the inspection report Ex.C3, but failed to examine any other farmer from the locality who has also purchased the same pesticide from the OPs. Insecticides will not work properly if the spraying is not done within the time specified by the manufacturer or if proper and clean water is not used during the process of spray.

14.           Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we do not find any merits in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 02.08.2022

 

                                                                President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

 

                  (Vineet Kaushik)     (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary) 

                      Member                       Member