State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Aries Agro Limited, A Company ... vs 1. Kothapally Srinivasa Rao, S/O. Sri K. ... on 24 November, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM Telangana First Appeal No. FA/1219/2013 (Arisen out of Order Dated 18/09/2013 in Case No. First Appeal No. CC/66/2010 of District Nizamabad) 1. Aries Agro Limited, a Company incorporated under the companies Avt 1956, haiving its Registered Office at 'Aries House', Plot No.24, Deonar, Govandi East Mumbai-400 043 and its ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. 1. Kothapally Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Sri K. Krishna Rao, Aged about 45 Years, Occ: Agriculturist, Madanpally Camp Maklur Mandal, Nizamabad Dist. 2. 2. Allaparthy Sambasiva Rao, Proprietor M/s. Laxmi agro Agencies Dharmaram Village, Dichpally Mandal, Nizamabad District. 3. 3. Cheminova India LImited, 7-1-78/A, Dharam karam Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad-500 016. 4. 4. Mandal Agricultural Officer Dichpally Village & Mandal, Nizamabad District. 5. 5. Assistant Agricultural Officer Dichpally Village & Mandal, Nizamabad District. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Dated : 24 Nov 2017 Final Order / Judgement STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA : At HYDERABAD FA 1119 OF 2013 AGAINST CC NO.66 OF 2010, DISTRICT FORUM, NIZAMABAD Between : Allaparthy Sambasiva Rao S/o. Mallaiah, aged 58 years , Proprietor. Laxmi Agro Agencies, Dharmaram Village, Dichpally Mandal, Nizamabad District. 2. Chaminova India Limited 7-1-78/A, Dharam Karam Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. Represented by its authorised representative C. Sathyanarayana, S/o Late Pedarattayya Aged 45 years, R/o Hyderabad ..Appellants/Opposite parties 1 and 2 And 01. Kothapally Srinivasa Rao S/o K .Krishna Rao, aged 45 yars , Occ: Farmer, R/o . Madanpally Camp, Maklur Mandal, Nizamabad District. Respondent/complainant Aries Agro Limited Opp: T.B. Hospital Lane, Erragadda, Hyderabad 500 038. 03. Mandal Agricultural Officer, Dichpally Mandal, Nizamabad District. Assistant Agricultural Officer, Dichpally Mandal, Nizamabad District. .. Respondents/Opposite parties 3 to 5 Counsel for the Appellant/Ops 1 and 2 : M/s. P. Sudheer Reddy Counsel for the 1st Respondent/complainant : Sri D. Vallabha Rao for R-1 Sri G.V. S. Ganesh for R-2 G.P. for R3 and R4. FA 1219 OF 2013 AGAINST CC NO.66 OF 2010, DISTRICT FORUM, NIZAMABAD Between : Aries Agro Limited, a Company incorporated Under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered office at Aries House, Plot no. 24, Deonar, Govandi East, Mumbai - 400 043 and its Branch office at # 302, 3rd floor, Srishti Homes, Sanjeevareddy nagar, Hyderabad - 500 037, Represented by its Assistant Vice President ( production), Mr. D. Ravindranath ..Appellant/opposite party no.3 And 1. Kothapally Srinivasa Rao S/o K .Krishna Rao, aged 45 yars , Occ: Farmer, R/o . Madanpally Camp, Maklur Mandal, Nizamabad District. Respondent/complainant Allaparthy Sambasiva Rao S/o. Mallaiah, aged 58 years , Proprietor. Laxmi Agro Agencies, Dharmaram Village, Dichpally Mandal, Nizamabad District. 3. Chaminova India Limited 7-1-78/A, Dharam Karam Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. Represented by its authorised representative C. Sathyanarayana, S/o Late Pedarattayya Aged 45 years, R/o Hyderabad ..Appellants/Opposite parties 1 and 2 04. Mandal Agricultural Officer, Dichpally Mandal, Nizamabad District. Assistant Agricultural Officer, Dichpally Mandal, Nizamabad District. .. Respondents/Opposite parties 4 and 5 Counsel for the Appellant/Opp. party no.3 : Sri G.V.S. Ganesh Counsel for the 1st Respondent/complainant: Sri D. Vallabha Rao for R-1 Sri P. Sudheer Reddy for R2&3 G.P. for R3 and R4 Coram : Honble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla ... President And Sri Patil Vithal Rao ... Member
Friday, the Twenty Fourth Day of November Two Thousand Seventeen Oral order : ( per Hon' ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon'ble President ) ***
1) The above two appeals are filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the opposite parties 1 &2 and Opposite party no. 3 respectively praying this Commission to set aside the impugned order dated 18.09.2013 made in CC No. 66 of 2010 on the file of the District Forum, Nizamabad and allow the appeals.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.
3). The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he is a farmer of agriculture lands admeasuring Ac.60 guntas in Sy.No.1050/A, 1064, 1068/A situated at Metrajpally Dichaplly Mandal Nizamabad district. He took another Ac.4.00 guntas on lease and is cultivating entire ten acres by sowing paddy crop Sona JGL 1798 and 1010 MTU. On 7-9-2008 he purchased Luphos 36 and Chelamin from Opposite Party No.1 vide bill No. 2529 and sprayed the same in his land on the same day but the entire crop was scorched on the following day. On intimation, Op No.1 visited his fields and agreed to compensate the crop loss. He also informed village revenue officer who visited the spot and gave report to the Thasildar who in-turn forwarded it to Assistant Director of agriculture Dichpally for necessary action. On receipt of report, the A.D.A Dichpally accompanied with Mandal agriculture officer visited the land on 10-9-2008 and gave his report to the Joint Director of agriculture. The Mandal agriculture officer directed Op .No.1 to stop sales of above pesticides and to pay compensation to him. He along with other farmers gave representation to the District Collector, Nizamabad. At the instance of District Collector, the Joint Collector of agriculture summoned a meeting between him and OP No.1 to 3. In the said meeting the company officials assured Joint Director that higher official from their company shall take decision on quantum of compensation. But, there was no response from them. On his complaint the SHO, Dichpally, registered a case under Cr. No. 202/2008 U/s 420 and 427 of IPC. The SHO summoned officials and tried to settle the issue amicably by way of compensation. The Ops 1 to 3 have been shifting the burden on one another and till date of filing of complaint no compensation has been paid. The Op No 3 and 4 collected samples of above pesticides and sent it to the laboratory at AP Acharya N.G. Ranga Agriculture University, Rajendranagar and also deputed students who visited the lands of the complainant and collected samples of scorched paddy. The complainant after using pesticides purchased from Op No.1 which are manufactured by Op No. 2 and 3 incurred total crop loss over 10 acres. If the crop has yielded the complainant would have got 450 quintals of paddy. The market value of the yield at the rate of Rs. 805/- per bag would have been 3,62,250/-. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay Rs. 3,62,250/- with interest @ 18% per annum from 7-9-2008 to 2-9-2010 amounting to Rs. 1,29,500/- totaling to Rs. 4,91,750/- with future interest @ 18% till realization, to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for causing mental agony harassment and financial loss and also cost of the complaint.
4) The 1st opposite party opposed the above complaint by way of written version and contented that the complaint not maintainable against him as he is only dealer of the Op. No. 2 and 3 and he is not the manufacturer of the pesticides. The op No.1 sells the pesticides in sealed condition, which is received from Op No.2 and 3 and as such he is not responsible for any defect in the pesticide. If at all, the contention of the complainant is true he is not responsible for any damage occurred to the fields of the complainant but only Op no. 2 and 3 who are manufacturers. There is no deficiency in service on his part and hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. The second opposite party filed counter contending that they always co-operated with the complainant as and when called to inspect the fields and sampling process of pesticides by sending it to authorized lab. Their pesticides were approved by the pesticide testing laboratory Rajendranagar, agriculture department of AP and no remarks were passed and the fact is known to the complainant. Their product was used by hundreds of cultivators but no complaint was received so far. The complainant tried his best to lower down the image of this company but failed in his attempt. There is no deficiency in service on their part and hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
6. The 3rd opposite party filed counter contending that Chelamin is the brand name of the product manufactured by them. The product is micro nutrient fertilizer containing chelated zinc ( Zn EDTA 12% ) and it is notified under the provisions of the fertilizer control order and it is not a pesticide. It subjects its each batch of product including chelamin to analysis at its full fledged laboratory under strict control and supervision of qualified and experienced quality control officers. Each batch of the products is released only after satisfaction about the quality and not otherwise. That apart, from samples of the products ( including chelamin) are drawn regularly by the authorities of the agriculture departments at different parts of the country. The copies of the analysis reports, in respect of the samples drawn, are found to be in conformity to the specification under the law. In the present case also it is ascertained and found that the samples of the product Chelamin were drawn from shop of Op No1 i.e the dealer by the agriculture officer. But the sale of the Product chelamin was not stopped as contended by the complainant. The test results are found to be in conformity with the FCO. The complainant admittedly used chelamin with Luphos 36 without ascertaining compatibility of the product and according to his wish but not as per recommendation of the Op No.3. Like wise the complainant has mixed a product by name Apsa and compatibility and composition of the product is not disclosed. The said product Apsa is not subjected to any laboratory test. The manufacturer or supplier of the product Apsa is not enquired and further not made party to the proceedings. The source of the product is concealed. Finally contended that the complainant got issued legal notice and the same was replied on 5-10-2010 by them denying the claim of the complainant. The Op No.3 nor its officials ever assured to pay any compensation to the complainant or any one. As no damage was caused by their product and there is no deficiency in service on their part and hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
7. The 4th opposite party filed counter, which was adopted by 5th opposite party, admitting that the complainant gave complaint stating that he purchased LUPHOS 36 and chelamin from first opposite party and due to spray of the same in his land the entire crop was scorched on the following day. Basing on that complaint he visited the fields of the complainant and found that entire crop of the complainant was scorched. They also visited shop of first opposite party dealer and directed to stop the sales of the above pesticides and collected the samples and the same were sent to the lab. They received the report from the lab stating that the samples drawn are in permissible in nature and hence he did not take any action against the first opposite party. There is no deficiency in service on his part and hence prayed to dismiss the complaint against.
8) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A-15. On behalf of Op No.1 A. Samshiva Rao filed his affidavit as RW1 and got marked Ex. B1 to B4 documents. On behalf of Op No.2 L. Srinivas Reddy Area Manager Chelinova India filed his affidavit as RW3 and marked Ex. B9 and B10 documents. On behalf of Op No.3 Sri. Johnson Varghese, Service Branch Manager of M/s. Aries Agro Limited filed his affidavit as RW2 and got marked Ex. B 5 to B8 documents. No evidence was adduced on behalf of Ops 4 and 5 inspite of giving sufficient opportunity. Therefore evidence on behalf of OP No. 4 and 5 is treated as closed . Heard arguments of counsel for the complainant and counsels for Ops 2and 3.
9) The District Forum, after considering the material available on record and the opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 2,32,500/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% form 4-9- 2010 , the date of filing of the complaint till realization and Rs. 3,000/- towards the cost of the complaint within one month. The complaint against Op No. 4 & 5 is dismissed
10) Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties 1 and 2 preferred FA No. 1119 of 2013 and the 3rd opposite party preferred FA 1219 of 2013 before this Commission.
11) Counsel for the appellant advanced his arguments reiterating the contents in the appeal grounds, rebuttal thereof along with written arguments. Heard.
12) The points that arise for consideration are, (i) Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? (ii) To what relief ? 13). Point No.1 :
There is no dispute that the complainant purchased Luphos 1.00 lt, batch No. 216,208 Chelamin batch No. 426 from Opposite Party No. 1 shop on 7-9-2008 for Rs.1600/- manufactured by the opposite parties 2 and 3. The contention of the complainant is that after spraying the pesticides purchased from Opposite party No.1 the entire crop in his ten acres was scorched on the next day and he suffered financially and mentally due to the spurious pesticides sold by Opposite Parties.
14) The first opposite party contended that he is only a dealer of the Opposite Parties 2 & 3 who are the manufacturers and sold the pesticides in sealed condition as it is received from Opposite Parties 2 & 3 after testing the laboratories at Bapatla and Tadepalligudem and if any liability arises it is only against Opposite parties 2 & 3 and not against him as he is only a dealer of pesticides. The opposite parties 2 and 3 rebutted the contention of the complainant stating that their product chelamin is a micronutrients Fertilizer containing Chelated Zinc and it is not a pesticide, the samples of their product are notified under the provisions of fertilizer control order. After analysis at Acharya NG Ranga Agriculture University their product was found to be as per specification as laid down under FCO. Further, the complainant used their product along with other pesticides product viz Luphos 36 and Apsa without ascertaining compatibility of the product. The product Apsa is not subjected to any laboratory test and that neither the supplier nor manufacturer are made parties to the complaint. Their product is not spurious one. Their pesticides after the lab analysis at pesticide testing laboratory found to be as per standards of Bureau of Indian standards and no remarks were passed. No evidence was adduced on behalf of Opposite Parties 4 & 5 despite giving sufficient and reasonable time.
15). We have perused the documents filed on both sides. Ex.A-3 is the letter addressed by VRO Mentrajpally to the Tahsildar, Dichpally and the Tahsildar in turn forwarded the letter to A.D.A Dichpally for taking action and the admission of the opposite party in his counter supports the averment of the complainant that he cultivated paddy in ten acres of land and the entire crop of the complainant was scorched due to using of the pesticides viz., LUPHOs and CHILAMin and in that connection the complainant gave compliant to SHO, Dichpally vide Ex.A9 and it was registered as case in Cr. No. 202 of 2008 (Ex.A10) and the complainant also gave legal notice dated 30.08.2010 vide Ex.A13 for compensation towards the loss of the crop. Ex.A5 report of Mandal agriculture officer Metrajpally( OP. 4) dated 16-9-2008 and report of VRO metrajpally Ex.A4 also supports the averment of the complainant that he cultivated ten acres of land and after spraying the products chelamin and Luphos purchased from Op No.1 his entire crop was scorched and the MAO directed the Op No.1 to stop sales of the product chelamin and Luphos.
16) Now, the point to be determined is, whether the samples sent for testing were extracted from the used boxes of the complainant and whether they are spurious pesticides.
17) The OP.4, Mandal Agricultural Officer, in his report to the Joint Director of Agriculture, Nizamabad, vide Ex. A5 informed that the farmers obstructed him and refused to give empty boxes of pesticides used by the complainant for getting the sample and hence he obtained the samples from the first opposite party dealer and sent the same for testing. There is no evidence on record to show that the samples sent for testing and the pesticides purchased by the complainant from the first opposite party are one and the same and from the same batch. Hence the District Forum refused to accept the analysis reports vide Ex. B-6 to B-9, on those reports the opposite parties 2 and 3 mainly depend upon, further, no panchanama was conducted with regard to the collection of samples and hence there is no legal sanctity to the said reports. The District Forum mainly suspected about the authenticity of the above analysis reports on the ground that the opposite parties 4 and 5 did not take the samples from the scorched crop. There is every reason to consider the suspicion of the District Forum because when there was a complaint from a farmer that his entire crop of Ac.10 was scorched by using the spurious pesticides purchased from the opposite parties 1 to 3 and on complaint when the MAO went for inspection to find out the truth as to why he did not choose to get samples from the scorched crop for analysis.
18) As argued by the Counsel for the appellants/opposite parties 1 and 2 the complainant admitted that the students of N.G. Ranga Agricultural University , Hyderabad have collected samples of scorched paddy, but, it is not on record to show that on the basis of the said samples Ex. B6 to B8 reports were issued.
19). The contention of the 3rd opposite party that the complainant mixed the product " Apsa" was contradicted by the complainant stating that APSA is nothing but GIUE which is commonly used by the farmers while spraying pesticides and fertilizers to increase the effectiveness of pesticides, for which, there was no rebuttal and hence the said allegation cannot be taken into account. Ex.A-1 cash bill shows that the pesticides purchased on 07.09.2008 from the appellant dealer and Ex.A5 report show that Mandal Agricultural officer went to the field of the complainant on 10.09.2008 and he observed that the crop was scorched and the farmers refused to give the empty boxes of the pesticides used by the complainant. From this, it can be derived that the pesticides mentioned in Ex.A-1 were sold by the appellants' dealer, even otherwise, he would have filed the same from the seller and it is not to be dis-believed that the said pesticides were not used by the complainant and MAO report supports the contention of the complainant that the crop was scorched. In those circumstances it is to be inferred that the crop was scorched due to the influence of the pesticides used by the complainant which were purchased from the appellants. We do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents 3 and 4/Opposite parties 4 and 5 as argued by their counsel and there is no claim against them by the complainant.
20). With regard to the quantum of loss, the District Forum estimated 300 quintals of paddy for Ac.10.00 guntas and estimated an amount of Rs.2,32,500/- @ Rs.775/- per quintal as per National Agriculture Cooperative Marketing Federation of India and Agriculture market and came to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to the same with 9% interest from 04.09.2010 from the date of complaint. We do not find any infirmity in the said finding.
21). After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants/opposite parties and the 1strespondent/complainant, we are of opinion that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the order passed by the District Forum and there are no merits in the appeals and hence they are liable to be dismissed.
22). Point No. 2 :
In the result, both the appeals, i.e. FA 1119 of 2013 and FA 1219 of 2013 are dismissed confirming the impugned order dated 18.09.2013 passed by the District Forum, Nizamabad in CC 66 of 2010. There shall be no order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks. The claim against the Mandal Agricultural officer and Assistant Agricultural officer is dismissed.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dated : 24.11.2017. [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO] JUDICIAL MEMBER