Back
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MUMBAI
S.T. Barne, Presiding Judicial Member and K.M. Lawande, Member
Smt. Gangubai and Anr. – Complainants
versus
Syngenta India Ltd. and Ors. – Opponents
Complaint Case No.50 of 2017
Decided on 27.11.2020
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainants:G.C. Navandar, Advocate
For the Opponent No.1:J.U. Kothari, Advocate
For the Opponent Nos.2 and 3: Exparte
IMPORTANT POINT
1) When the complainant has established that it is the case of total crop loss, complainants entitled for appropriate compensation from Opponent No.2 from whom they purchased saplings
2) No necessity to consider for expenditures made by the complainants and to compensate for those separately though the complainants are claiming the cost of production
Headnote:
(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 17 [Sec. 47(1) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019] – Agriculturists/Complainants and Ankush found in May 2016 that crop did not develop properly, entire crop purchased from Opponent no. 2, was lost despite giving water by tanker and drip irrigation - Complainants planted tomato saplings in their field, contended that they incurred expenditure of Rs.6,55,000/ on various items - Expected tomato production of 100 tonnes - Complainants expected income of Rs. 47,65,000/- & claimed compensation of Rs.54,20,000 (6,55,000/- + 47,65,000) towards total crop loss - Findings of this Commission, post-arguments: Complaint not maintainable against Opponent No.1 as Complainants failed to prove nexus between Opponent no. 1 and Opponent no. 2 - When the complainant has established that it is the case of total crop loss, complainants entitled for appropriate compensation from Opponent No.2 from whom they purchased saplings - Observation of studies made by Prof. Tambe considered for arriving at anticipated loss to complainants - No necessity to consider for expenditures made by the complainants and to compensate for those separately though the complainants are claiming the cost of production - Claim of complainants for the cost of production is not justified
Held: In fact, in view of our earlier discussion we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to bring the case under definition of consumer as against the opponent No.1 and that there is any nexus between complainant and opponent No.1 while purchasing the saplings from opponent No.2 and therefore, the complaint is not maintainable against opponent No.1. In the circumstances there is no propriety in discussing other defences raised by opponent No.1. Reliance is also placed on judgment of Hon’ble State Commission Mumbai in FA No. 710/2007 Shri. Sunil Vinayak Ghatule Vs. Shri. Dilip Changdeo Khare - Much is said about the First Appeal No.748/07 filed by M/s. Known-You Seeds(/) Ltd. There was no privity of contract between the said company and the complainant. At the relevant time Shri Sunil Ghatole, the proprietor of Bharari Farm Nursery was not authorized agent of seed company. Moreover, the complainant did not purchase the seeds in the original form. He purchased papaya saplings. The appeal filed by the Seed Company therefore was allowed by order dt. 28/03/2007.
However, It is the case of total loss as per experts’ report. Therefore in our opinion this Commission can assess the compensation on rational basis. As discussed earlier when the complainant has established that it is the case of total crop loss complainants are entitled for appropriate compensation from opponent No.2 from whom he has purchased the saplings actually. The complainants relied upon on book on tomato cultivation written by Dr. Harishchand Kapse and Ravindra Katole for their contention about yield. To support their contention of income from sale, they have produced the letter of Agricultural produce marketing committee, Ahmednagar with an enclosure about then existing rate during month of May, June and July 2016. Those rates are varying from Rs. 500/- to 7,000/- per quintal during the season. However, it cannot be expected to get the rate with 47.5 per kg as claimed as an average rate on the basis of said APMC rate.
We cannot rely upon aforesaid contention of complainants regarding rate that the complainants could have receive. Therefore, we relied upon the diary which speaks about the yield of Tomato published by the Dr. Vasantrao Naik Agricultural University Parbhani. Said diary states that the tomato yield as 25 to 30 tonnes per hector during normal season. We have also come across one research article on tomato economics by Prof. P.C. Tambe and others from Mahatma Phule Agricultural University, Rahuri (MS) published in journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry 2018:7(4) 1525-1527 which is also available on website at www.phyto-journal.com wherein it is observed that the farmers going for summor tomato production in Ahmadnagar District obtained of yield of 264.73 quintals/26.47 tonnes per hector and received gross income of Rs. 4,70,793/- per hector. This article has observation for tomato production is nearly similar to as stated by the Agricultural University, Parbhani. Though the complainants have produced the data on market rate during the period, there is no affidavit in support of it by Secretary of APMC on record. Said data is at page No. 53, the rates are varying from Rs.500/- per quintul to Rs.7000/- per quintal. Therefore, we do not agree with the claim of compensation by complainants for Rs. 47,65,000/- i.e. at Rs. 47.65 per kg.
As discussed earlier we find the studies of Prof. Tambe as quite reliable because it is nearly similar to Agricultural University Parbhani. Said study is also for the same Dist. of the complainants and it has studied the production and economics of summer tomato for the year 2015-16. The results are given for it is also regarding the 2.5 acres/ 1 hector of tomato cultivation which is nearly equal to the area of these complainants. Therefore, the observation of the studies made by Prof. Tambe can be considered for arriving at anticipated loss to the complainants in the case in hand. Therefore, we would like to consider the case of complainants for their gross income for Rs. 4,70,000/- towards anticipated yield of 26.5 tones as arrived by Prof. Tambe in the area of 2.5 acres of land under cultivation. As we have considered the case for gross income, there is no necessity to consider for the expenditures made by the complainants and to compensate for those separately though the complainants are claiming the cost of production. We find the claim of complainants in appropriate on this count because the farmers have to spend for the raising of the crop. Had the crop not lost, the complainants would have received only the amount from sale proceeds and not for cost of production or expenses incurred separately. Therefore, the claim of complainants for the cost of production is not justified. Therefore, in our opinion complainants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.4,70,800/- with 7 % interest from the filing of the complaint. We are also of the opinion to award the cost of litigation of Rs. 5,000/ and Rs. 10,000/- towards the mental agony. Accordingly, we pass the following order. (Paras 2, 29, 32, 33 & 34)
Result: Complaint partly allowed against opponent No.2, directed to pay the amount of Rs. 4,70,000/ with 7 % interest p.a. to the complainants, Rs.5000/- towards the cost of litigation and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony to the complainants within 1 month.
JUDGMENT
S.T. Barne, Presiding Judicial Member.—The complainant Smt. Gangubai w/d of Ankush Kale and Vinod s/o Ankush Kale have filed this complaint u/sec. 17 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the contention of complainants that they are agriculturists. Ankush Bhagwat Kale is the husband of complainant No.1 and father of complainant No.2 respectively was also agriculturist. Ankush died on 20.02.2017. He was having 2 acres 35 R. cultivable land, in Gut No. 226 situated at Bahirwadi Tq. Nagar, Dist. Ahmednagar. The deceased had planted 21,500 tomato saplings of “TO-1057” variety in the month of March 2016 and cultivated those plants with due care and caution and they have incurred expenditure of Rs. 6,55,500/- on it. The complainants had expected produce of 2000 crates (1 crate of 20 kg each) per acre which comes to 5000 crates for 2.5 acres equivalent to 1 Lakh kg/100 tons. As per the then prevailing market rate during the months of May, June, and July, they expected income was Rs. 47,65,000/-. The complainants have incurred expenses on said plantation by raising gold loan and by selling of tempo.
2. It is alleged by the complainants that in the month of May 2016, the complainants and the Ankush found that said crop was not developed properly. It is alleged by the complainants that, on 09.05.2016, it was published in the news paper, that sale of TO-1057 was stopped as it was noticed that saplings supplied of Syngenta company i.e. opponent No.1 are affected by decease/virus and the agriculturists were put to loss. It is found to agricultural expert that said crops have no resistance power. The complainant Vinod thereupon submitted complaint in writing to opponent No.3 for spot inspection. The team lead by opponent No.3 and representative of opponent No.1 & 2 visited the spot on 20.05.2016. They found that the cultivation was proper, however condition of crop plants “TO 1057” was bad, and those plants were not having capacity to bear the temperature above 30 degree Celsius. One Mr. Bade the representative of opponent No.1 & 2 was present there, who advised to complainants to continue spraying and supply of water and assured that after raining there will be improvement. However, the loss was reached to 100 %. Therefore, the complainants again referred the complaint to opponent No.3, the team of opponent No.3 visited the spot again on 28.07.2016, and they found that, entire crop has been lost despite of giving water by tanker and drip irrigation.
3. It is further alleged that due to the loss sustained to complainants, Ankush the father of complainant No.2 used to remain under tremendous pressure and in that state he died on 20.02.2017. On 04.08.2017 the opponent No.3 informed the complainants that report dt. 20.05.2016 is applicable as it is, to the inspection dt. 28.07.2016. It is the contention of complainants that they suffered huge loss, due to faulty incompetent saplings of TO 1057, supplied by opponent No.1 & 2. Hence, the complainants are claiming Rs. 25,000/- towards cost of proceeding, Rs. 54,20,000/- towards loss of sustained including expenditure with interest at the rate of 9 % p.a., and Rs. 1 Lakh towards pain and mental agony.
4. The opponent No.1 Syngenta India Ltd. appeared before this Commission and filed its written statement at page No. 63. The opponent No.1 has denied all adverse allegations. It is the contention of opponent No.1 that the complaint is without any basis, complainants are not covering under definition of consumer, hence the complaint is not maintainable. There is no evidence to show that the complainants purchased the saplings of crop of tomato from opponent No.1, and utilised the same in the agriculture filed.
5. Without prejudice to aforesaid contention, it is the contention of opponent No.1 that, for seeking the compensation the only Civil Court has jurisdiction and not to this Commis
