Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Anup K. Thakur, Presiding Member
Adama Agan Limited and Ors. —Petitioners
versus
Ramesh and Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.942 of 2020 and Revision Petition No.943 of 2020
Decided on 18.1.2021
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Satyam Bhatia, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Dealers and manufacturers of seeds and herbicides, etc. one expected to property inform the farmer and also to have follow up feed back.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21(b) and 2(1)(c) : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019—Sections 58 and 2(b)]—Crop loss—Claim for damages—Scope—Complainant-respondent had sown sugarcane in one acre of land—He purchased herbicides from petitioner—After spraying the same, the crop which was otherwise doing well suffered severe damage—District Forum allowed the complaint to the extent of Rs. 72,850/- which being the loss @ Rs. 310/- quintal for 235 quintals—Order of District Forum upheld by State commission—Hence this petition—Dealers and manufacturers of Agri-inputs are expected to property inform the farmer and followed up after sale to ensure that the farmer has understood and following instructions—Dealers and manufactures should have been proactive rather than reactive—Nothing brought on record to interfere with orders passed by Fora below. (Paras 8 to 15)
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER
Anup K. Thakur, Presiding Member.—Under challenge in Revision Petition No. 942 of 2020 is the impugned order dated 12.02.2020 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula,(State Commission, hereafter), in F.A. No.834/2018.Vide this order, the State Commission had upheld the order dated 24.5.2018 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (District Forum, hereafter). Under challenge in Revision Petition No. 943 of 2020 is the impugned order dated 12.02.2020 of the State Commission in F.A. No.849/2018 vide which it had upheld the order dated 24.5.2018 of the District Forum.
2. It is proposed to dispose off both these Revision Petitions by this common order.
3. Brief facts of the case in RP 942/2020 are that the respondent/complainant had sown sugarcane in one acre of land in village Baland, Tehsil and District Rohtak. He had purchased herbicides worth Rs.7,990/- vide receipt no.11460 dated 20.06.2016 from the petitioner no.1/OP1. It so happened that the crop which was otherwise doing well, as per the complaint, after spraying of herbicides, suffered severe damage. Upon informing the Ops, complainant received no response. The SDAO (sub divisional agriculture officer/office) was informed. Inspection of the affected crop was carried out and a report submitted.
4. A consumer complaint was then filed seeking compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- on account of crop damage, from the petitioners/OPs.
5. The complaint was resisted by the OPs. Grounds taken were that at the time of sale of the herbicide, the seal was intact. Further, this herbicide had been sold to various distributors/dealers and no other complaint from anywhere else had been received. Further, there had been non-compliance of Deputy Director’s circular dated 03.01.2002 by the team which had assessed the loss: This had required that one representative of the agency concerned viz. Ops shall be a member of the inspecting team. It had been argued on behalf of the petitioners/OPs that this was not complied with and therefore, the report of the team finding crop loss could not be accepted.
6. The District Forum considered the arguments of the OPs and concluded that the fact that the circular of Deputy Director of Agriculture dated 3.1.2002 was not complied with while constituting the inspection team was a mere inadvertence and did not suggest any malafide intention. In any case, it was an irregularity and on this ground, equity and natural justice could not be denied to the complainant. So reasoning, it allowed the complaint to the extent of Rs.72,850/-, this being the loss on account of 235 quintals of sugarcane in one acre land @ Rs.310/- per quintal, with interest of 9% from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 25.10.2016 till its realization. A cost of Rs.5,000/- was also awarded. In the appeal filed against this order of the District Forum, the reasoning and logic of the District Forum was upheld by the State Commission. Hence, this RP 942/2020.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that to prove deficiency in service/defect in herbicides and the consequential damage to sugarcane crop, it was necessary to have included one member representative of the OPs in the inspection team. As much had been mandated vide a circular of the Deputy Director of Agriculture (supra). The fact that this was not done would make the inspection report liable to the rejected as illegal. He also argued that the inspection report dated 3.8.2016 had found 90% damage to the crop and had further found that upto 70% to 80% was due to the use of herbicides from it’s “phytotoxicity effect”. Learned counsel argued that it was difficult to take this report seriously as it comprised but a few handwritten lines to state what was found during the inspection.
8. After having heard the learned counsel and perused carefully the record, including the inspection report and the concurrent orders of the District Forum and the State Commission, I am of the conside
