Haryana

Ambala

CC/273/2020

Kuldeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Anttal Agro Co. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

11 Apr 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	273 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	11.11.2020
Date of decision	:	11.04.2023

 

Kuldeep Singh S/O Jagir Singh, Resident of Village- Ugara, Distt- Ambala (Haryana).

…..Complainant

Versus

 

1. M/S ANTTAL AGRO CO, SONDA COLONY, Jalbera Road, Ambala City, (Through its Prop).
2.  Deputy Director, Department of Agriculture, Ambala City.
3.  (Super Boss), SMITH & SMITH CHEMICALS LTD Crown Heights, 807-808 Plot No 3 B 1, Twin District Centre Sector 10 Rohini- Delhi-85 (Through its M.D).
4.  (Award FS) & (FAST), GERMAN PESTICIDES INDIA, H.O-B 419, Green Field Colony, Faridabad (HR)-121 010 (Through its MD).
5.  (Passion), SUMITOMO CHEMICALS INDIA PVT LTD, Regd Office, Moti Mehal, 7th Floor,195 J TATA Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. (Through its M.D).
6. (KORY) & TEBUZOL, SUMITOMO CHEMICALS INDIA PVT LTD, Building No-1, Ground Floor, Shant Manor, Co-Op Housing Society Ltd, Chakarwati Ashok, X Road, Kandivali East, Mumbai (Mah)-400101 (Through its M.D).
7. (Acemain) ADAMA INDIA PVT LTD, Plot No DS-13, IKP Knowledge Park, St No-542/2,Genone Valley, Turkapally, Shameerpet Ranga Reddy Distt Hyderabad-500078, Telangana INDIA. (Through its M.D).

 

….…. Opposite Parties

Before:       Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:      None for the complainant.

                    Shri Daya Ram, Advocate, counsel for OPs No1, 4, 5 and 6

                    Shri Shekhar Kumar, Authorized Representative of OP No.2.

                    Shri Ranbir Singh Rana, Advocate, counsel for OP No.3.

                    OP No.7 already ex parte.

                  

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay Rs.4,73,197/- for damage of his crops due to defective pesticide/chemical alongwith interest @ 18 % per annum till realization.
2. To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of mental & physical harassment as well as monetary loss caused to the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges.
4. Grant any other relief, which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

 

2.             Brief facts of this case are that the complainant is a farmer and resident at Village- Ugara, PO-Bara, Distt- Ambala (Haryana) and as such purchased Paddy/Rice Seeds of HKR 47 from Haryana Seeds Vikas Nigam Ltd, New Anaj Mandi Ambala City for planting 8 Acer land from 24^th to 27^th  Jun 2020. On 11^th  Sep 2020 as per advise of OP No.1 for precaution of paddy/rice Crop from the weeds, insects & diseases, the complainant purchased pesticide for Spray, vide Bill No 75 dated 11-9-2020, Annexure C-1, on making payment of Rs.5,484.64/- (items Supper Boss Regd Office as Opposite Party No.3 (B No-XA- 038) Mfg date 20^th  Jun 2020, exp date 19^th  June 2022, Awards FS Regd Office OP No.4 B.No-NX 236 Mfg date Jul 2020 Passion Regd Office OP No.5  (B No- UPASO/C054) and sprayed the same in the 8 Acers land as per instruction given by OP No.1 and as mentioned on the Pesticide Box. On 23-09-2020 the complainant again purchased another Pesticide from OP No.1 with an assurance that the second spray will give good result for paddy Corp i.e. vide Bill No -81 dated 23-9-2020, on making payment of Rs.6145.44/-, (the items of Bod was Korry (Regd Office as OP No.6 (B.No.D0096, Mgf date 02^nd  Jul 2020 Exp Date 20^th  Apr 2022, Acemine (Regd Office as OP No.7 (B No AIAC004760, Mfg Date 21^st  Apr 2020 Exp Date 20^th  Apr 2022), Fast (Regd Office as OP No.7) (B No-NX 243) (LC 5% EC) Mfg date Aug 2019, Exp Date 31^st  Jul 2021), Award FS (Regd Office as OP No. 7 (B.No NX 236, Mfg Date Jul 2020, Exp Date 30^th  Jun 2022) and sprayed on the Paddy Crop but no good results were found. Matter was brought to the notice of OP No.1 but no action was taken by it.  On 02-10-2020 with the assurance of OP No.1 again the complainant has purchased Pesticide vide Bill No 84 date 02-10-2020 after paying Rs 3967.00/- (Items of Box was Tabuz (Regd Office as OP No-6 (Tebucnazole Lc 25.9% Ec) B. No UTEBG/CO14 Mfg Date 19-6-2020. Exp Date 18-06-2022 and Acemine (Regd Office as OP No-7) (B,Bo AIAC004760, Mfg Date 21-4-2020 Exp Date 20-4-2020). All the chemicals had been sprayed on the above Paddy Crop as per instruction given by OP No.1, in 08 Acers Land. In the month of Oct 2020, it was noticed that all the paddy crop of the complainant has been damaged which was on account of the chemical spray aforesaid. Resultantly, on 13-10-2020 the complainant reported the matter to OPs No.1 and 2. On 27/10/2020, OP No.2 sent a team of Agriculture Department for inspection of  the 08 Acres land of the complainant, whereupon, it was found that due to Toxicity of the Chemical 90 to 95 % Paddy Crops has been damaged. The above said Pesticide/ Chemical Spray which was purchased by the complainant from OP No.1 was also not approved by the Haryana Agriculture University Hissar. Hence this complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and suppressed the true and material facts etc. On merits, it has been stated that all the pesticide mentioned in the complaint has been supplied on the demand of complainant and OP No.1 never suggested or recommended as alleged by the complainant. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
4.           Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared and filed written version stating therein that the complainant must before purchasing the agriculture inputs especially pesticides, should have obtained the technical advice from officers either of Department of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare or from the Scientist of Krishi Vigyan Kendra Ambala. The manner of making the purchase directly from the dealer by the complainant was improper or without the technical advices of experts. A team of three Officers consisting of Sh. Virender Kumar (Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Ambala), Sh. Shekhar Kumar (Assistant Plant Protection Officer, Ambala) and Sh. Ramesh Arya (Block Agriculture Officer, Ambala-1) was deputed to conduct the spot inspection of fields of complainant on 14-10-2020 to verify the status of damage of paddy crop occasioned due to spray of the alleged pesticides. The said team inspected the alleged fields and opined that the complainant kept on spraying many kinds of pesticides without waiting the waiting period of each pesticides as prescribed by the Government of India and even without obtaining the technical advices from the technical experts. Thus by his own deeds, his paddy crop suffered loss to the extent of 90-95%. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.2.
5.           Upon notice, OP No.3 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections to the effect that  the complaint of the complainant is not legally maintainable; the complainant has approached this Commission not with clean hands;  the complainant never approached OP No.3 prior to inspection of his field nor informed regarding the inspection of his field by the team of Agriculture Department; the complainant has filed the present complaint by concealing the true and material facts; the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint etc. On merits, it has been stated that the complainant be asked to put strict proof regarding purchasing the paddy rice seeds of HKR-47 from Haryana Seeds Vikas Nigam Ltd. New Anaj Mandi, Ambala City. The pesticide marka Supper Boss Batch No. XA-038 Super Boss is a combination product consisting of Hezconazole and Validamycin for comprehensive control of fungus. lt is especially effective on paddy sheath blight ( Tane ka Jhulsa Rog) and make the crop green only and effect only as per dose mentioned in the instructions. The complainant never informed the OP No.3 regarding damage of his any crop. The team of the Agriculture department visited the land of the complainant without the knowledge of OP No.3 and as per the report, it is clearly mentioned in the report that the crop of the complainant was damaged due to his own negligence, as the complainant repeatedly sprayed the pesticides of other company and due to heavy dose and toxicity, the crop of the complainant was damaged. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant sprayed the product of OP No.3 on 11.09.2020 only and after that the complainant sprayed the pesticides of other companies, and prior to spraying the other pesticides, the complainant never informed OP No.3. The paddy crop of the complainant was damaged due to his own negligence. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.3 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with heavy cost.
6.           Upon notice, OP No.4 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections to the effect that the complainant is not a consumer; the present complaint is not maintainable as the goods in question have been purchased by the complainant for commercial purpose; Serious allegation of quality of the products mentioned in the complaint has been made by the complainant without any supporting evidence and as such, the defect in the quality of the product can be determined only after proper analysis or test of the products; the complainant should have got the sample of the product retained with him and re-analyzed  it through State Laboratory or any laboratory equivalent to the State Laboratory etc. On merits, it has been stated that OP No.4 is the largest manufacturer of Technical Grade Pesticides and formulations in the country. The products are manufactured and sold by it are in accordance to the Registration Certificate issued to them by the Central Insecticides Boards and Registration Committee HIV, Faridabad under section 9(4) of the Insecticides Act and are labeled strictly in accordance with the label as approved by CIB. In order to monitor the quality of the products manufactured by OP No.4, it has well equipped quality control department/ laboratory with qualified staff. Each and every batch of the product manufactured, undergoes strict quality inspection. OP No.4 is not aware about the land of the complainant.  The complainant has purchased the products by his own willingness and OP No.1 only assured good results of the products on the crop and recommended for the same. The complainant has not mentioned as to whether he has used the product as per recommendation printed on the label of the products and the accompanying leaflet. The complainant has misused the product and has suffered alleged loss and is now trying to shift the burden on the OPs. OP No.4 is not aware that the complainant made complaint to Deputy Director Agriculture, Ambala City and on his complaint on 27.10.2020 Agriculture Department inspected the field/ crop of the complainant. Neither OP No.4 nor its representative were informed about such inspection. Agriculture officers cannot decide quality or recommendation of the product by naked eyes without testing the same through Laboratory. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.4 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with exemplary cost.
7.           Upon notice, OPs No.5 and 6 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections to the effect that the "Korry" Insecticide purchased by the complainant is not manufactured by OPs No.5 and 6 and as such the complaint is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer as he has purchased the alleged insecticide for commercial purpose; no cause of action has accrued in favour of the complainant to file the instant complaint etc. On merits, it has been stated that there is no allegation/averment against OPs No.5 and 6 in the entire complaint. Perusal of inspection report of Agricultural Department revealed that the complainant himself was to blame as he did not use the insecticides in accordance with the directions nor did he consult any technical experts of the Agriculture Department. Further, he mixed all insecticides and sprayed the same in haphazard manner and without proper intervals. Some of the insecticides were also not recommended by the Agriculture Department nor their advice was taken. No chemical test was carried out by the committee at the time of inspection to ascertain whether damage was caused due to the insecticides and to what extent. As such, in the absence of any test, no reliance can be placed on the said report which merely relied on statement of complainant and visual inspection of damage. There is no evidence on record to show that the alleged loss caused to the complainant was attributable to the insecticides manufactured by OPs No.5 and 6. The complainant used six different insecticides by mixing them together which is against the usage instructions and there is no evidence to show as to which particular insecticide allegedly caused the loss or whether same was caused due any other reasons. Further, there is no averment in the complaint that the said insecticides were used in accordance with the instructions mentioned in the leaflets attached with the said insecticide. Rather, the report of Agriculture Department clearly states that the insecticides were not used in accordance with directions and without consultation of experts. No dates have been given as to when the paddy crop was sown, when the insecticides were sprayed and when the alleged damage took place. The alleged insecticides were not tested by a competent laboratory either under the Insecticide Act or as per procedure prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act. Hence, it cannot be inferred that the alleged damaged was caused due to spraying of the said insecticides. The batch of insecticide allegedly used by the complainant were duly tested prior to its sale. A perusal of leaflet of Passion shows that it is only for spraying on cotton crops whereas the complainant used same in his paddy fields. Hence, the complainant cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrongs. Nothing has been brought on record by the complainant to show or prove as to how he has arrived at the figure of loss of 200 Quintal paddy. Crops can be affected due to various reasons viz. poor quality of seeds, inadequate rain fall or irrigation, not following proper instructions or inadequate or over doss of pesticides/insecticides. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OPs No.5 and 6 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
8.           Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OP No.7 before this Commission, therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 17.08.2021.
9.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW-1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. Learned counsel for the OPs No.1, 5 & 6 tendered affidavits of Gurpreet Singh, Proprietor of M/s Antal Agro Co. Sonda Colony, Jalbera Road, Ambala City and Shri Pradeep Kumar Gaur, Senior Regional Business Manager and Authorized representative of Sumitomo Chemical India Limited as Annexures RW-1/A and RW-5&6/A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to R-11 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1, 5 and 6. Authorized Representative of OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Girish Nagpal, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Ambala as Annexure OP-2/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2. Learned counsel for OP No.3 tendered affidavit of Rohtash, Authorized Person of Smith and Smith Chemicals Ltd., Crown Heights, 807-808, Plot No.3 B I, Twin District Centre, Sector-10 Rohini, Delhi as Annexure RW-3/A alongwith document Annexure R-12 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.3. Learned counsel for the OP No.4 tendered affidavit of Shri Anil Kumar, Authorized Representative of German Pesticides India-OP No.4 as Annexure RW-4/A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to R-4 and closed evidence on behalf of OP No.4.
10.           None put in appearance on behalf of the complainant, on the day, when arguments were heard. Accordingly, we have heard the learned counsel for OPs No.1, 3 to 6 and authorized representative of OP No.2 and have carefully gone through the case file and also gone through the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the OPs No.5 and 6.
11.           Learned counsel for OPs No.1, 4, 5 and 6 submitted that all the pesticides/insecticides were supplied to the complainant as per the demands raised by him. The complainant has failed to prove his case by placing on record any expert report in his favour, from any laboratory showing that the product/pesticides/insecticides were of inferior or poor quality. Complainant never informed the OPs No.1,4,5 & 6 regarding inspection of his fields by the agriculture department. Even otherwise, in the inspection report it is clearly mentioned that on account of wrong method of spraying by the complainant, his crop got damaged i.e. he sprayed the pesticides/insecticides without waiting for the waiting period of each pesticide/insecticide, as prescribed by the government of India. He further submitted that OPs No.5 and 6 are not the manufacturers of the said pesticides/insecticides which were bought by the complainant, thus, the complaint filed against them may be dismissed with heavy costs. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in the cases titled as Mohinder Pal Versus Kisan Pesticides and others, date of decision 11.07.2016 and Devender Kumar and others Versus M/s Amsons Lab Pvt. Ltd. CPJ 2014 (IV) 575 (NC).
12.           Authorized Signatory of OP No.2 submitted that the complaint failed to take technical advice from the Agriculture Department or from Farmers Welfare etc. with regard to the said pesticides/insecticides and on the other hand, directly purchased the same from the dealer. He further submitted that the Officers deputed for inspection of the crop of the complainant opined that it was on account of wrong method of spraying by the complainant that his crops were damaged i.e. he sprayed the pesticides/insecticides without waiting for the waiting period of each pesticides/insecticides, as prescribed by the Government of India.  
13.           Learned counsel for OP No.3 submitted that the OP No.3 is well reputed company in the field of pesticides/insecticides and there is no complaint of any product from anywhere in India. The complainant never approached OP No.3 prior to inspection of his filed nor informed OP No.3 regarding inspection thereof by the Agriculture Department.
14.           Purchase of the pesticides/insecticides by the complainant from OP No.1 vide cash/credit memo dated 02.10.2020, Annexure C-1 is not in dispute between the parties. It is also not in dispute that the crop of the complainant was damaged as a result of which it sought compensation from OP No.1, yet, it refused to do so. In this case, the parties are leveling allegations against each other,  as such, under these circumstances, to come to any definite conclusion,  this Commission deemed fit to refer to the letter dated 27.10.2020, Annexure C-3 alongwith the expert report Annexure C-4, having been issued by the Deputy Director, Department of Agriculture, Ambala. A bare perusal of the said report reveals that three experts in the fields of agriculture had inspected the damaged crop of the complainant and opined in the said report that the crops of the complainant has been damaged to the extent of 90 to 95% only because of the reasons that the complainant had sprayed the chemicals/pesticides/insecticides, in question, in short duration i.e. first spray of 11 days followed by 9 nine days spray, as a result of which due to excess spray of chemicals/pesticides/insecticides on the crops, it turned out as poisonous for the said crops. Thus, on the basis of the said report, it is difficult to ascertain that the damage to the crop was due to application of purchased of insecticide/pesticide only. In the case of as Mohinder Pal Versus Kisan Pesticides and others (supra), the Hon’ble National Commission, has held that the Agriculture Development Officer in his report has no where stated that the loss of crop was as a result of use of defective pesticide. No test report of Pesticide has been produced on record. In the case of Devender Kumar and others Versus M/s Amsons Lab Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission has held that the complainant has not produced on record any laboratory report to substantiate that crops were damaged 100% de to application of pesticides. Report of Agriculture Development Officer only reveals that there was 100% damage to the wheat crop-These Officers have not carried out any rest to ascertain whether 100% damage to wheat crop was due to application of purchased pesticides or not.
15.            In this view of the matter, it is held that since the complainant has failed to prove his case, as such, no relief can be granted to him. Resultantly, this complaint stands dismissed with no order as to cost. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

 Announced:- 11.04.2023.

 

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President