Haryana

StateCommission

A/1366/2017

PI INDUSTRIES - Complainant(s)

Versus

SANJAY AND OTHERS. - Opp.Party(s)

S.C.THATAI

03 May 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

Date of Institution:04.09.2017

Date of final hearing:03.05.2023

Date of pronouncement:09.05.2023

 

First Appeal No.1060 of 2017

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

1.      Dhanuka Agritech Ltd. Having its Corporate Office at 14^th Floor, Building 5A, DLF Cyber Terrace, Cyber City, DLF, Phase-III, Gurgaon-122002 through its Vice President (Legal) Mr. Rajesh Sahni.

2.      Safex Industries Ltd., Plot No.22, IID Centre, Battal Ballian, Udhampur (Jammu & Kashmir) through its Director Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jindal S/o Kashmiri Lal Jindal, aged 53 years.

…Appellants.

Through counsel Mr.Sant Kashyap, Advocate

 

Versus

 

1.      Sanjay son of Late Shri Hari Ram, R/o Village Rajlu Garhi, Tehsil Ganaur, District Sonepat.

….Respondent No.1.

Through counsel Mr.Virender Singh, Advocate

 

2.      M/s Pinki Rathee Kisan Kender, Panchi Road, Gandhi Nagar, Ganaur, Tehsil Ganaur, District Sonepat through its Proprietor.

….Respondent No.2.

Through counsel Mr. Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate

 

3.      PI Industries Ltd., having its Corporate Office at  5^th Floor, Vipul Square, B-Block, Sushant Lok, Phase-I, Gurgaon-122009 through its Managing Director.

….Respondent No.3.

Through counsel Mr. S.C. Thathai, Advocate

 

Present:-    Mr. Sant Kashyap, counsel for the appellants.

                   Mr. Virender Singh, counsel for respondent No.1.

                   Mr. Harish Bhardwaj, counsel for respondent No.2.

                   Mr. S.C. Thathai, counsel for respondent No.3.

 

Date of institution: 13.11.2017

Date of final hearing:03.05.2023

Date of pronouncement:09.05.2023

 

First Appeal No.1366 of 2017

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

PI Industries Ltd., Corporate Office 5^th Floor, Vipul Square, B-Block, Sushant Lok, Phase-I, Gurgaon-122009, through Ms. Shilpa Sachdeva, Head Legal.

…..Appellant.

Through counsel Mr. S.C. Thathai, Advocate

 

Versus

1.      Sanjay son of Late Shri Hari Ram, R/o Village Rajlu Garhi, Tehsil Ganaur, District Sonepat.

….Respondent No.1.

Through counsel Mr.Virender Singh, Advocate

 

2.      M/s Pinki Rathee Kisan Kender, Panchi Road, Gandhi Nagar, Ganaur, Tehsil Ganaur, District Sonepat through its Proprietor.

….Respondent No.2.

Through counsel Mr. Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate

 

3.      Safex Industries Ltd., Plot No.22, IID Centre, Battal Ballian, Udhampur (Jammu & Kashmir) through its Prop./MD.

 

4.      Dhanuka Agritech Ltd. Having its Corporate Office at 14^th Floor, Building 5A, DLF Cyber Terrace, Cyber City, DLF, Phase-III, Gurgaon-122002 through its Prop./MD.

….Respondents No.3 & 4.

Through counsel Mr.Sant Kashyap, Advocate

 

Present:-    Mr. S.C. Thathai, counsel for the appellant.

                   Mr. Virender Singh, counsel for the respondent No.1.

                   Mr. Harish Bhardwaj, counsel for respondent No.2.

                   Mr. Sant Kashyap, counsel for respondents No.3 & 4.

CORAM:   Mr. S.C. Kaushik, Member.
 

 

O R D E R

 

S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER:

 

          Vide this common order above mentioned two appeals bearing F.A No.1060 of 2017 and F.A. No.1366 of 2017 will be disposed of as both have been preferred against the impugned order dated 02.08.2017 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (now ‘District Commission’) vide which the complaint filed by the complainant (Sanjay) was allowed and the opposite parties (‘Ops’) were directed as under:-

“On our view, the above said amount claimed by the complainant is on a very higher side, excessive and exorbitant. Since it is proved that the complainant has suffered the loss of paddy crop, in our view, Rs.20,000/- per acre would be an adequate compensation to be granted to the complainant from the respondents No.2 to 4 for the loss caused to the paddy crop of the complainant to the extent of 85% in 8 acres of land. Similarly, Rs.15,000/- per acre would be an adequate compensation to be granted to the complainant from the respondents No.2 to 4 for the loss caused to the paddy crop of the complainant to the extent of 70% in 7 acres of land. Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents No.2 to 4 to make the payment of above said awarded amount to the complainant.”

2.                Brief facts of complaint filed before learned District Commission are that the in the year, 2015 complainant had sown the crop of paddy PB 1121 in his agriculture land measuring 15 acres. He purchased some medicines namely Thiophanate Methy 70% WP, Kitazin 48% EC and Bifenthrin 10% EC, for his paddy crop from OP No.1(M/s Pinki Rathee Kisan Kender). He sprayed the said medicines on paddy crop in his agriculture land as per the directions of Ops No.1 to 4. It was alleged that after 10 days after spray i.e. 17.10.2015, he found that paddy crop in 15 acres land was ruined/burnt. Thereafter, he informed OP No.1 regarding the damage with the request to compensate him, but of no use.  It was further alleged that complainant also wrote a letter to Agriculture Development Officer, Ganaur upon which some officials inspected the fields of complainant and made a report dated 03.11.2015. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of Ops .

3.                Upon notice, Ops No.1, 2 & 4 appeared before learned District Commission and submitted their separate written versions. However, OP No.3 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 06.04.2016.

4.                OP No.1 in its written statement submitted that the complainant was neither the owner nor in possession of the entire land as per revenue record. However, the pesticide/medicine was given by the OP No.1 on self-demand of complainant without any assurance of any kind and the same was in a packed/sealed packets as was received from the manufacturer. It was further submitted that no other complaint was received from any other farmer. The Agriculture Developer Officer in his report dated 13.11.2015 has no where mentioned that the crop of paddy was damaged due to said medicine. It was further submitted that complainant did not send the sample to any laboratory for getting it tested, in the absence of which it cannot be said that the loss occurred was due to use of medicine. Further, submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                OP No.2 in its written statement submitted that no sample was taken from OP no.2 by the Sub Divn. Agriculture Officer or the complainant establishing that the fungicide purchased and alleged to be used was of sub-standard quality. It was further submitted that the complainant mixed all the medicines, which are not recommended. The fungicide manufactured by OP No.2 was the safest medicine and can be used having no side effect, which used to cure fungus.  It was further submitted that fungicide should never be mixed with other medicines at one time.  It was further alleged that there can be many other reasons like temperature, nature of soil, fertilization, proper seeds etc., which can damage the crops. Moreover, the officers, who inspected the fields has no where mentioned that the crop was damaged due to sub-standard quality of medicine. Further, submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6.                OP No.4 in its written statement submitted that product namely Bifenthrin 10% EC, which was manufactured by No.4  is one of the best products available in the market to control the insect in the crops of cotton and rice. It was further submitted that in the absence of any report from any laboratory, it cannot be said that the insecticide was of sub-standard quality. It was further submitted that the complainant mixed all the medicines, which were not recommended in any manner. However, the complainants has admitted that harvest/crop of paddy was in good condition before the spray and when the crop was in good condition, why there was any need to purchase the medicines. It was further submitted that the Agriculture Officer in its report nowhere stated that the paddy crop got damaged due to impugned product.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.4 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

7.                After hearing, learned counsel for the parties, learned District Commission allowed the complaint as mentioned above in para 1^st supra.

8.                Aggrieved from the impugned order, OP No.2 (Safex Industries Ltd.) & OP No.4 (Dhanuka Agritech Ltd.)-Appellants have preferred First Appeal No.1060 of 2017 and OP No.3 (PI Industries Ltd.) has preferred the First Appeal No.1366 of 2017 for setting aside the impugned order passed by learned District Commission.

 9.                  Arguments have been advanced by Mr. Sant Kashyap, learned counsel for appellants in First Appeal No.1060 of 2017, Mr. S.C. Thathai, learned counsel for the appellant in First Appeal No.1366 of 2017, Mr. Virender Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1-complainant (Sanjay) and Mr. Harish Bhardwaj, counsel for respondent No.2 (M/s Pinki Rathree Kisan Kender).  With their kind assistance the entire records as well as original record of learned District Commission including whatever evidence have been led on behalf of the parties had also been properly perused and examined.

10.                 As per the basic averments raised in both the appeals including the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, the foremost question which requires adjudication by this Commission is as to whether the paddy crop of complainant (Sanjay Kumar) sown in 15 acres of land was damaged due to sub-standard quality of medicines (manufactured by appellants) and consequently, whether the complainant(present respondent) is entitled to get compensation on that account or not? 

11.                As per the respondent No.1-complainant (Sanjay), respondent No.2 supplied poor quality of medicines (manufactured by appellants) and his standing paddy crop sown in 15 acres of agriculture land was damaged and he suffered a huge financial loss. However, it was admitted by respondent No.2 that the medicines were purchased by complainant from it, but there was no fault on the part of respondent No.2 as the same were sold in packed and sealed manner as received from manufacturer. On the other hand, main stand taken by learned counsel for appellants in both the appeals is that respondent No.1 mixed all the medicines and sprayed on his crop, which was not recommended in any manner. However, their was no defect in their product and no other complaint was received from any farmer.

12.                It is also admitted fact that on 29.10.2015, District Agriculture Officer, Ganaur and his team inspected the fields of respondent-complainant (Sanjay) and prepared the report. As per the said report, complainant used the medicines as under:-

i)          Thiophanate Methyl 70% WP, manufactured by Safex Chem India Ltd.

ii)         Kitazin 48% EC manufactured by PI Industries Ltd.

iii)        Bifenthrin 10% EC manufactured by Dhanuka Agrotech Ltd.

 

Abovementioned medicines were manufactured by appellants and it was clearly mentioned in the said report that the crop was not developed completely or it can be said that the crop was damaged.

13.                Thus, learned District Commission rightly observed that the paddy crop of complainant sown in 15 acres of agriculture land was damaged due to substandard quality of medicines manufactured by the present appellants and rightly issued the directions as mentioned above. Impugned order dated 02.08.2017, passed by learned District Commission, Sonepat is well reasoned, based on facts, as per law and there is no need to interfere with it.  Hence, the First Appeal No.1060 of 2017 filed by the Ops No.2 & 4 (Dhanuka Agriteh Ltd. & Safex Industries Ltd.) and First Appeal No.1366 of 2017 filed by OP No.3 (PI Industries Ltd.), both stand dismissed while upholding the order passed by the learned District Commission.

 

 

14.                 The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the First Appeal No.1366 of 2017 titled as “PI Industries Ltd. Vs. Sanjay & Ors.” be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and due verification, as per rules.

15.                 The original judgement be attached with appeal No.1060 of 2017 and its certified copies be attached with appeal No.1366 of 2017.

16.                A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for perusal of the parties.

17.                Application(s), pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

18.                File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

 

Pronounced on 09^th May, 2023

 

                                                                                                            S.C Kaushik,

Member        

Addl. Bench-III        

 

 

R.K