State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Crystal Phosphates Ltd vs Harbhajan Singh on 5 April, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRA DUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 30 / 2005
1. Crystal Phosphates Ltd.
Village Nathupur
District Sonipat, Haryana
2. Managing Director, Crystal Phosphates Ltd.
Village Nathupur
District Sonipat, Haryana
3. Sh. Mahendra Singh Malik S/o Sh. Atul Singh Malik
Director, Crystal Phosphates Ltd.
M-5, Kundan Bhawan, Commercial Complex
Azadpur, Delhi
...... Appellants / Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4
Versus
1. Harbhajan Singh S/o Sh. Darshan Singh
R/o Village Bagwara, Tehsil Kitcha
District Udham Singh Nagar
2. Lakhvinder Singh S/o Sh. Iqbal
R/o Village Bagwara, Tehsil Kitcha
District Udham Singh Nagar
3. Smt. Rajrani Sharma W/o Sh. Doodhnath Sharma
R/o Ramnagar, Post Bagwara, Tehsil Kitcha
District Udham Singh Nagar
4. Harish Chandra Pandey S/o Sh. Prabhunath Pandey
R/o Village Bhamrola, Tehsil Kitcha
District Udham Singh Nagar
5. Gajjan Singh S/o Sh. Joginder Singh
R/o Village Bagwara, Tehsil Kitcha
District Udham Singh Nagar
6. Rajwant Singh S/o Sh. Iqbal Singh
R/o Village Bagwara, Tehsil Kitcha
District Udham Singh Nagar
......Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 / Complainants
7. Poorvee Rudrapur Kisan Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd.
Village Bagwara, Tehsil Kitcha
District Udham Singh Nagar through its Branch Manager
......Respondent No. 7 / Opposite Party No. 1
2
Sh. Pradeep Bartwal, Learned Counsel for the Appellants
Sh. M.K. Kohli, Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6
Sh. Naresh Chhabra, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 7
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Irshad Hussain, President
C.C. Pant, Member
Dated: 05/04/2010
ORDER
(Per: C.C. Pant, Member):
This appeal is directed against the order dated 06.01.2005 passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar, partly allowing consumer complaint No. 180 of 2003 and directing the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 - appellants to pay to the complainant Nos. 1 to 6 sum of Rs. 83,200/-, Rs. 41,600/-, Rs. 70,720/-, Rs. 41,600/-, Rs. 29,120/- and Rs. 33,280/- respectively alongwith Rs. 3,000/- as litigation expenses, within a period of one month from the date of the order. The District Forum has dismissed the consumer complaint against the opposite party No. 1 - respondent No. 7.
2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainants had purchased "Zinc Sulphate" fertilizer from Poorvee Rudrapur Kisan Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Village Bagwara, Tehsil Kitcha, District Udham Singh Nagar - opposite party No. 1 in different quantities as per their requirement. According to the complainants, deficiency of zinc causes a disease named "Khaira" in the paddy crop. After planting the seedlings, of paddy in the month of May, 2003, the complainants found that the crop had caught the said disease "Khaira". So, the complainants sprayed the Zinc Sulphate fertilizer on the crop according to the prescribed standard, but the complainants found that it did not work and the crop's condition worsened, which ultimately resulted in the total damage to the crop. The complainants say that they had sown "Pant-4" seed of the paddy, which gives a 3 yield of 25 quintal per acre. The government's rate of this paddy is Rs. 520/- per quintal. Accordingly, the complainants have assessed their respective loss due to the damage caused to their crop. They made a complaint to the District Magistrate, who asked the Project Officer (Agriculture) to enquire into the matter. The Project Officer (Agriculture) took the samples of Zinc Sulphate from the balance stock of fertilizer of two Sahkari Samitis and sent it to the State Level Fertilizer Quality Control Laboratory, Rudrapur. As per standard, the zinc contents in Zinc Sulphate should be atleast 21%, but on the laboratory test, the content came out much less than the said standard. The Project Officer (Agriculture) lodged an FIR against opposite party No. 3 - Managing Director, Crystal Phosphates Ltd. and opposite party No. 4 - Sh. Mahendra Singh Malik, Director, Crystal Phosphates Ltd. alongwith the company's agents. The complainants had purchased the fertilizer from opposite party No. 1 - Poorvee Rudrapur Kisan Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd. The fertilizer "Shankh" brand Zinc Sulphate was manufactured by opposite party No. 2 - Crystal Phosphates Ltd. So these two opposite parties were also made the formal parties to the consumer complaint. Since the opposite parties had sold a fertilizer, which was of sub-standard quality, the complainants filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar. The District Forum, partly allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 06.01.2005 in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 have filed this appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the fertilizer "Zinc Sulphate" is used for the faster growth of the crop. If 4 Zinc Sulphate is not used as per the prescribed limit, it may affect the growth of the crop, but it can not damage the crop. In respect of the alleged damage to the crop, the complainants should have obtained the opinion of an agricultural expert. Only an agricultural expert can ascertain the real cause of the damage to the crop and can also assess the extent of the loss. The complaint is not supported with any such report. The District Forum has simply relied on the Patwari's report, which can not be taken as an agricultural expert's report. The Patwari's report is based on the information collected from some of the villagers.
5. The learned counsel further submitted that the samples of Zinc Sulphate in which the content of zinc was found much less than the standard of 21% by the State Level Fertilizer Quality Control Laboratory, Rudrapur, were sent to Referee Laboratory by the Agricultural Directorate on appellants' request. The samples were taken from Batch No. 201/66 by the Project Officer (Agriculture) from the stock of M/s Narainpur Sahkari Samiti and M/s Rudrapur Sahkari Samiti. The Referee Laboratory found these samples as per standard. The Additional Director (Agriculture), on the basis of this re-testing report, directed the Project Officer (Agriculture) to withdraw the cases lodged against the appellants and to release the stock of fertilizer, which was seized under the Essential Commodities Act on the basis of earlier testing report prepared by the State Level Fertilizer Quality Control Laboratory, Rudrapur. The learned counsel said that the District Forum, without appreciating these facts, had erred in allowing the consumer complaint and directing the appellants to compensate the loss.
56. The learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the facts narrated in the consumer complaint and as submitted before the District Forum.
7. We considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. At the very outset, we would like to express our feeling that the District Forum did not take much pain in going through the consumer complaint and the written statement filed by the appellants. For this reason, the District Forum could not appreciate the facts of the case in a proper and just manner. What we could observe is that the complaint is not supported with sufficient evidences and, therefore, the complainants have failed to prove the allegations made against the appellants. Though it is admitted that the complainants had purchased Zinc Sulphate from Poorvee Rudrapur Kisan Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., but the cash memos produced in proof thereof do not show the Batch Number of the product. So, it can not be said whether the goods in dispute related to Batch No. 201/66 or not. We also find that the Project Officer (Agriculture), on receiving directions from the District Magistrate, had not made a proper and thorough enquiry into the matter. The dispute or the allegations were in respect of the Zinc Sulphate sold by opposite party No. 1, therefore, it was necessary to inspect the total stock and the related account books of the seller. After ascertaining that the goods sold were related to Batch No. 201/66, samples should have been taken from the seller's stock. But the Project Officer (Agriculture) took the samples of Zinc Sulphate from the stock of the other Sahkari Samitis.
8. We shall not hesitate to express our view that the complaint appears to have been made with a motive to extract money from the appellants so that loss occurred to the complainants due to "Khaira" disease in the crop, could be recovered. Our opinion is based on the 6 facts narrated in the complaint itself. According to the complainants, the seedlings were planted in the month of May, 2003. They found during June-July, 2003 that the crop had caught the "Khaira" disease and the crop had become pale (paras 2 and 3 of the consumer complaint). Further, the complainants have stated in para 4 of the consumer complaint that they purchased the Zinc Sulphate for arresting the said disease. That means, the complainants sprayed the Zinc Sulphate on a crop, which had already caught the "Khaira" disease and had started decaying. The appellants do not claim that their product can revive such plants, which are either dead or have started dying. The appellants had refuted the allegations in the same manner in their written statement, but the District Forum, without going through these details, just relied upon the laboratory test report obtained by the Project Officer (Agriculture).
9. The District Forum failed to observe that the complainants have themselves admitted in the consumer complaint that the seedlings of paddy were planted in the month of May, 2003 and they found during the month of June-July, 2003 that the crop had caught the "Khaira" disease. In para 4 of the consumer complaint, the dates of purchases are stated as 18.07.2003, 05.07.2003, 27.06.2003, 25.06.2003, 07.07.2003, 05.07.2003, 07.07.2003 and 05.07.2003. That means, the complainants had made most of the purchases in the month of July, 2003 and, thus, the said Zinc Sulphate was sprayed in the month of July, 2003. By that time, the crop had already become pale, i.e., the dying process of the crop had already started. In such a situation, it should not be expected that Zinc Sulphate, if sprayed at this stage, would revive the dying crop. Zinc Sulphate's role is to accelerate the growth of the crop by supplementing the need for zinc. The complainants have failed to submit any evidence by way of an expert's report or by submitting any extracts of the agricultural 7 literature in support of their allegations that the deficiency of zinc causes "Khaira" disease in the crop and their crop was also affected by not getting zinc upto the required limit because the content of zinc in Zinc Sulphate was much less than the required limited. The test report regarding zinc's content came out later on when the Project Officer (Agriculture) got the samples of Zinc Sulphate tested in a local laboratory. We have already expressed our views in respect of this test and the way the samples for test were taken. Therefore, when we look into the complaint from all these angles, we find that the complaint is a frivolous one and the District Forum should have seen this fact while deciding the case on merit.
10. Further, even if we rely upon the fact that goods in dispute related to Batch No. 201/66, we find that the Director of Agriculture had got the samples of the said batch re-tested from the Referee Laboratory as per the provisions of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 and vide its letter dated 30.12.2003 (Paper Nos. 39 to 40) had exonerated the appellant - company from the charge of selling sub-standard fertilizer.
11. For the above reasons, the order passed by the District Forum suffers from legal and factual infirmity and is liable to be set aside.
12. Appeal is allowed. Order impugned dated 06.01.2005 of the District Forum is set aside and consumer complaint No. 180 of 2003 is dismissed. The consumer complaint being a frivolous one, the complainants - respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are directed, jointly or severally, to pay to the appellants sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses.
(C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE IRSHAD HUSSAIN) K