State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Syngenta India Limited, 14-J, Tata ... vs 1. Balwant Singh Son Of Panjab Singh. ... on 10 February, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.461 of 2008 Date of Institution: 08.02.2008 Date of Decision: 10.02.2012 M/s Syngenta India Limited, 14-J, Tata Road, Church Gate, Mumbai-400020 through its authorized representative. Appellant (OP-2) Versus 1. Balwant Singh son of Panjab Singh. Resident of Village Narwalgarh (Batta), Tehsil and District Kaithal. Respondent (Complainant) 2. M/s Jai Kishan Trading Company, near Timber Market, Bijli Chowm, Hind Road, Kaithal, District Kaithal, through its Proprietor Jai Kishan Sharma. Respondent (OP-1) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Shri Navjot Sidhu, Advocate for appellant. Respondents exparte. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 20.12.2007 passed by District Consumer Forum, Kaithal whereby the appellant-opposite party No.2 as well as the respondent No.2 (opposite party No.1) have been held guilty for supplying inferior quality of pesticides to the respondent No.1 (complainant) and granted following relief:-
we are of the considered opinion that the respondents are deficient on its part for supplying sub-standard copper-50 wettable power fungicide to the complainant. One, who is deficient, should suffer. We find modi-cum of merit in the submissions of ld. Counsel for the complainant. There is no force in the submissions of ld. Counsel for the respondents. The ends of justice will be met if respondents are directed to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for loss suffered by the complainant. So, the respondents are directed to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for loss suffered by him as-well-as for harassment and mental agony including the costs. Complaint is accepted.
The case of the respondent No.1 -complainant before the District Consumer Forum was that he had purchased two bags of blue copper-50 wettable power Fungicide Batch No.S.S.P.5 G 207 from the opposite party No.1 (respondent No.2 herein) which was manufactured by the appellant-opposite party No.2 and the same was sprayed on the paddy crop for removing the disease of his paddy crops standing in his field. According to the complainant he sprayed the aforesaid pesticide in two acres of paddy crop but the same did not effect the disease of the crop. Complainant alleged that he suffered huge financial loss due to the damage of his crop by the disease which was not removed by the pesticides, being of inferior quality. Thus the complainant sought compensation from the opposite parties to the tune of Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. on account of loss of his crops and Rs.30,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony.
Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement stating therein that the pesticides supplied to the complainant was of good quality and it was the complainant who did not spray the same in accordance with the instructions given on the packets of the pesticides. Complainant also failed to produce the receipt with respect to the purchase of the pesticides and for that reason the complainant was denied being a consumer of the opposite parties. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
District Consumer Forum believing complainants version accepted complaint and issued direction to the opposite parties as noticed in the opening para of this order. Hence this appeal.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that without there being any lab report with respect to the quality of the pesticides supplied to the complainant, it cannot be determined that the pesticides of inferior quality.
The contention raised on behalf of the appellant is attractive in view of settled law in catena of judgments of Honble Supreme Court, Honble National Consumer Commission and States Commissions of various States. Reference can be made to the following judgments:-
In Revision Petition No.131/2003, National Seeds Corporation Ltd versus Nalia Narsimha Roa which was decided on 11.02.2009 alongwith a bunch of other revision petitions, it was observed by Honble National Commission that-
It is well settled by now that under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short), the burden to prove the deficiency, if any, on the part of the respondent, is on the complainant. Section 13(1)(c) provides that where a complainant alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtained a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the appropriate laboratory along with a direction to make an analysis/test.
Undisputedly, in the instant case the sample of the pesticides was never sent to the Testing Laboratory and therefore without there being any lab report as per the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 it cannot be said that the pesticides supplied to the complainant was of inferior quality. The strength of the pesticides depends upon various other factors i.e. the quantity of water used for spraying the pesticides, blow of wind, time of spraying the pesticides etc. Sometimes, if the wind is blowing at the time of spraying the pesticides, then the pesticides flies alongwith the wind. The ratio of water used in the pesticides also effect the strength of the pesticides. Thus, due to non-testing of the pesticides in the lab, merely on the statement of the complainant, it cannot be said that the pesticides sold to the complainant was of inferior quality. District Consumer Forum has failed to take into account the aforesaid facts and therefore we do not think it a fit case to hold the opposite parties deficient in service or involved in unfair trade practice. Hence, the impugned order passed by the District Consumer Forum cannot be allowed to sustain.
For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
The statutory amount of Rs.5,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 10.02.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member