State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Cheminova India Limited vs Umed Singh on 5 January, 2015
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No : 508 of 2014 Date of Institution: 12.06.2014 Date of Decision : 05.01.2015 M/s Cheminova India Limited Registered Office at Keshava, Seventh Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai, through its authorized representative Sh. K. Muralidharan, holding the post of Sales administration in M/s Cheminova India Limited, Head Office at Star House, A102, Sector 4, Noida. Appellant-Opposite Party No.2 Versus 1. Umed Singh s/o Sh. Puran, Resident of Saiya Khera, Tehsil Ganaur, District Sonepat. Respondent-Complainant 2. Prop. Dahiya Agriculture Clinic, Panchi Road, in front of Railway Station, Ghanaur, District Sonepat. Respondent-Opposite Party No.1 CORAM: Honble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President. Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member Present: Shri Pankaj Maini, Advocate for appellant. Shri Bhupinder Singh Bairage, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri Satbir Singh Dahiya-proprietor, for respondent No.2. O R D E R
B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
M/s Cheminova India Limited-opposite party No.2 has filed the present appeal against the order dated April 24th, 2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Sonepat, vide which the complaint filed by Umed Singh-complainant (respondent No.1 herein) was allowed and a sum of Rs.80,000/- was awarded as compensation for loss of crops due to the side effect of weedicides distributed by the appellant and sold by M/s Dahiya Agri Clinic-opposite party No.1 (respondent No.2).
2. The complainant filed complaint with the allegations that on December 15th, 2012 he purchased weedicides from opposite party No.1 for Rs.3770/- vide receipt (Exhibit C-1). He sprayed the weedicides on his wheat crop in eight acres of land situated within the revenue estate of Village Saiya Khera District Sonepat. After spraying the weedicides, the wheat crop was destroyed. He filed an application (Exhibit C-4) to the Sub Divisional Officer, Agriculture Department, Sonepat who forwarded the same to the Deputy Director Agriculture, Sonepat. Accordingly, a team of agriculture experts consisting of Shri Deepak Kuhar, Subject Matter Specialist (P.P.), Shri Ranvir Mor, Agriculture Development Officer Umedgarh and Shri Suraj Bhan, Agriculture Development Officer, Khubru, inspected the crop on January 7th, 2013. The Agricultural Officials gave their report (Exhibit C-9) stating that two acres of the crop was adversely affected to the extent of 45-50% while six acres crop had effect to the extent of 20-25%. The complainant got his fields photographed. Aggrieved complainant sought compensation of Rs.3.40 lacs.
3. The opposite parties contested complaint.
The opposite party No.1 admitted having sold the weedicides, however, denied the loss suffered by the complainant because of inferior quality of weedicides. It was stated that the weedicides was sold in the same condition as was purchased by him from M/s Cheminova India Limited-opposite party No.2. Opposite Party No.2 raised plea that the weedicides was manufactured by M/s Atul Limited and it was only a distributor. The plea raised was that because of wrong mixture, the weedicides had adversely affected the crop and not because of inferior quality.
4. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence brought on the record, the District Forum accepted complaint and granted relief to the complainant as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.
5. Shri Pankaj Maini, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the weedicides was manufactured by M/s Atul Limited, who was not impleaded as party and the appellant had sold the same intact condition as was sold to it by the manufacturer.
6. Be that as it may, the appellant does not deny having sold weedicides to opposite party No.1 M/s Dahiya Agri Clinic. On the application filed by the complainant Agriculture Experts Committee inspected the fields and submitted report (Exhibit C-9). In the report it was clearly stated that two acres of the crop had adverse effect upto 45-50% and in six acres the crop had effect upto 20-25%. So, it is established that the weedicides was not pure. The report submitted by a team of agriculture experts cannot be discarded.
7. So far as the contention raised on behalf of the appellant for non-compliance of the procedure prescribed under Section 13(1) (C) of the Act, the same has no force in view law settled by Honble Supreme Court in M/s National Seeds Corporation Ltd. versus M. Madhusudhan Reddy and another, 2012(1) CPC 191.
8. In Madhusudhan Reddy,s case (Supra) sunflower seeds were purchased by the complainant from the opposite party which were found defective. Complaint being filed, District Forum directed the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.1,79,505/- with 12% interest. Order was affirmed by the State Commission and National Commission. In appeal before Honble Supreme Court, the order was challenged on different grounds including that the procedure laid down in Section 13(1) (c) was not adopted and for that reason the order was liable to be set aside. While upholding the order, Honble Supreme Court observed as under:-
35. The issue deserves to be considered from another angle. Majority of the farmers in the country remain illiterate throughout their life because they do not have access to the system of education. They have no idea about the Seeds Act and the Rules framed thereunder and other legislations, like, Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Act, 2011. They mainly rely on the information supplied by the Agricultural Department and Government agencies, like the appellant.
Ordinarily, nobody would tell a farmer that after purchasing the seeds for sowing, he should retain a sample thereof so that in the event of loss of crop or less yield on account of defect in the seeds, he may claim compensation from the seller/supplier. In the normal course, a farmer would use the entire quantity of seeds purchased by him for the purpose of sowing and by the time he discovers that the crop has failed because the seeds purchased by him were defective nothing remains with him which could be tested in a laboratory. In some of the cases, the respondents had categorically stated that they had sown the entire quantity of seeds purchased from the appellant. Therefore, it is naove to blame the District Forum for not having called upon the respondents to provide the samples of seeds and send them for analysis or test in the laboratory.
36. It may also be mentioned that there was abject failure on the appellants part to assist the District Forum by providing samples of the varieties of seeds sold to the respondents. Rule 13(3) casts a duty on every person selling, keeping for sale, offering to sell, bartering or otherwise supplying any seed of notified kind or variety to keep over a period of three years a complete record of each lot of seeds sold except that any seed sample may be discarded one year after the entire lot represented by such sample has been disposed of. The sample of seed kept as part of the complete record has got to be of similar size and if required to be tested, the same shall be tested for determining the purity. The appellant is a large supplier of seeds to the farmers/growers and growers. Therefore, it was expected to keep the samples of the varieties of seeds sold/supplied to the respondents. Such samples could have been easily made available to the District Forums for being sent to an appropriate laboratory for the purpose of analysis or test. Why the appellant did not adopt that course has not been explained. Not only this, the officers of the appellant, who inspected the fields of the respondents could have collected the samples and got them tested in a designated laboratory for ascertaining the purity of the seeds and/or the extent of germination, etc. Why this was not done has also not been explained by the appellant. These omissions lend support to the plea of the respondents that the seeds sold/supplied by the appellant were defective.
8. The facts of the instant case are fully attracted to Madhusudhan Reddy,s case (Supra). Indisputably, the appellant is engaged in business of weedicides on large scale, it must be having the weedicides of the lot which was sold to the complainant. In order to prove that the weedicides sold to the complainant was not sub-standard/defective, the appellant could have sent the sample for testing to the laboratory, which it failed to do. It is not expected from every buyer of the weedicides/pesticides to set apart some quantity of the same for testing on the presumption that it may be defective in future after use and that he would be called upon to prove the same through laboratory testing.
9. Shri Satbir Singh Dahiya-Proprietor M/s Dahiya Agri Clinic submitted that on receipt of complaint from the complainant, he alongwith Shri Parveen Rana- representative of M/s Cheminova India Limited-appellant, visited the fields of complainant and did find the wheat crop to have been destroyed. Thus, the opposite party No.2-appellant had been afforded opportunity to inspect the fields. Even loss of crop stands admitted by opposite party No.2appellant. The appellant did not examine their representative Sh. Parveen Rana, who inspected fields alongwith opposite party No.1, to state that there was no damage or that damage was not due to spray of weedicides.
10. The defence taken by the appellant-opposite party No.2 was that manufacturer of weedicides namely M/s Atul Limited was not arrayed as a party. The opposite party No.2 did not file any application either before the District Forum or before this Commission for impleading the manufacturer M/s Atul Limited as a party. Therefore, opposite party No.2 cannot claim any benefit on that account.
11. In view of the above, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.
12. The appeal consequently fails and is hereby dismissed.
13. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-
deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any. However, appellant-opposite party No.2 may sue manufacture M/s Atul Limited separately if they so choose to recover the amount.
Announced 05.01.2015 (Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member (B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member (Nawab Singh) President CL