Back
2020 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 838
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
COROMANDEL INTERNATIONAL LTD. – Appellant
Versus
KAMRUBAI & 6 ORS. – Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. 4314 OF 2012 | REVISION PETITION NO. 4287 OF 2012
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Gagan Gupta, Mr. Sandeep Gupta
For the Respondents: NEMO
Manufacturers must retain product samples to counteract claims of defects, shifting the burden of proof to them when farmers cannot provide evidence due to normal usage.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 13(1)(c), 2(1)(iii) - Complaint alleging sub-standard seeds damaging crops; the complaint was initially dismissed by the District Forum due to complexity, but the State Commission awarded compensation of Rs. 1 lac - The court emphasized the obligation of sellers to provide samples for test; farmers cannot be expected to retain seeds purchased. (Paras 6, 10, 16)
(B) Agriculture Inspection - Reports by agricultural officers must be preferred particularly when they support consumer claims - The reports against manufacturers are to be given preference unless legitimate grounds exist for a different conclusion. (Paras 6, 20)
(C) Burden of proof shifts to manufacturers to disprove defective product claims when initial consumer evidence is presented - The failure to test by manufacturers indicates a lack of defense against allegations of defect. (Paras 10, 16)
Facts of the case:
The complainants purchased agricultural products from the sellers and suffered significant crop damage allegedly due to defective pesticides, leading to their seeking compensation through consumer forums after initial dismissal in lower court.
Findings of Court:
The court determined it improper for sellers to dismiss initial findings in favor of complainants without presenting rebuttal evidence, emphasizing the beneficial intent of consumer protection laws to support farmers.
Issues: The court addressed whether the consumers used products properly and whether they can be held responsible for not retaining samples for testing.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioners failed to demonstrate that the complaints regarding the defect in seeds were unfounded as they did not provide the sample seeds or counter-reports for examination, thus favoring the complainants' initial claims over contradictory reports.
Result: Revision Petitions dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial complaint dismissed by district forum; appeal led to compensation. (Para 5) |
| 2. manufacturer's defense relied on contradictory reports from inspections. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. court highlights burden of proof on manufacturers in disputes. (Para 8 , 9) |
5. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the complainants approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 09.08.2012, the State Commission set aside the order passed by the District Forum and directed the OPs in the complaints to pay compensation quantified at Rs.1 lac to the complainants. Being aggrieved, the seller as well as the manufacturers are before this Commission.
6. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for Coromandal Fertiliers Ltd., petitioner in RP No.4314/2012 that after inspection on 05.12.2009, another inspection was carried out on 13.01.2010 wherein no damage to the crop of the complainants was found. The said inspection was carried out by Senior Agriculture Development Officer of Farmers Welfare and Agriculture Development in the presence of panch witnesses who had signed the said report. In my view, the reliance placed by the State Commission on the report dated 05.12.2009 which was the first report in the point of time, cannot be said to be misplaced or unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case. At the time of the second inspection, the complainants were not joined. Therefore, it cannot be verified whether the fields inspected on 13.01.2010 were the same fields in which the crop of the complainants was allegedly impacted on account of pesticides etc. It is true that even the seller and the manufacturers were not present at the time when inspection was carried out on 05.12.2009 but the complainants cannot be held responsible for the concerned Officer of the Government not joining them. What is important is that the complainants were not likely to show some field other than the field in which the crop was affected at the time of inspection on 05.12.2009 but, there is no certainty as regards the fields which were shown at the time of inspection on 13.01.2010. In any case, even when there are two contradictory reports, one favouring the farmers and the other favouring the sellers/manufacturers, the report favouring the farmers has to be given preference unless there are specific grounds for preferring the report given against the farmers over the report given in favour of the farmers. The Consumer Protection Act, being a beneficial provision, meant for the benefit of the consumers, such an approach would be absolutely in consonance of the legislative intent.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel that out of five panch witnesses of the report dated 05.12.2009, only three had supported the complainants whereas the remaining two had not supported them. This, in my opinion, will not be important considering that not only the majority of the panch witnesses had supported the complainant, the public official who carried out the inspection, did not depose against the complainants.
8. It is true that no technical report was produced before the District Forum nor the sample was sent to any laboratory. In this regard, it has to be kept in mind that a farmer purchases inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides for using in his fields and at that time, he would not suspect that the pesticide and/or fertilizers would be found to be of inferior quality and would damage the crops sown by him. Therefore, he is not expected to retain the samples of the inputs purchased by him. The manufacturers, on the other hand, are expected to retain the samples of every lot and therefore, nothing prevented them from requesting the District Forum to send the sample from the lot which was sold to the complainants to an appropriate laboratory. Such a course of action was not attempted by the sellers and/or the manufacturers.
9. The issues involved in these petitions recently came up for consideration of
