State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Charanjit Singh Son Of Shri Bhagwat ... vs Mitsu Crop Sciences Pvt. Ltd. 5 Km Stone, ... on 5 October, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.188 of 2010 Date of Institution: 16.02.2010 Date of Decision: 05.10.2012 Charanjit Singh son of Shri Bhagwat Singh, Resident of Usmanagar Tehsil Pehowa District Kurukshetra. Appellant (Comlainant) Versus Mitsu Crop Sciences Pvt. Ltd. 5 KM Stone, Beri Road, Sampla Rohtak Haryana 124501 (Regd. Office; 14 Inder Enclave, Opp Ydyog Nagar, Pashim Vihar, New Delhi 110087 Through its Managing Director and others. Respondent (OP) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Shri Rohit Goswami, Advocate for appellant. Respondent exparte. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 30.12.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum, Kurukshetra whereby complaint filed by the complainant (appellant herein) was dismissed.
The brief facts of the present case as emerged from the record are that that the complainant had purchased 5 packets of pesticides Sultan/Sulfosfuran from the respondent-opposite party No.2 for spraying the same in his fields. According to the complainant he sprayed the aforesaid pesticides in his five acres of land but instead of destroying the Kharpatwar, the wheat crop in his five acres land was destroyed due to which he suffered huge financial loss. Thus, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum and also complained to the Director Agriculture Department, Haryana, Panchkula upon which the officials of the Agriculture Department inspected the fields of the complainant and found that there was hundred percent damage/loss of the wheat crop of the complainant Charanjit Singh in 5 acres of wheat crop.
Opposite Party No.2 appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement taking the plea that as the pesticides in question was not got tested in the laboratory in view of the provision of Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therefore it cannot be said that the pesticides sold to the complainant was defective or inferior quality. It was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal. Opposite Party No.1 was exparte before the District Forum.
Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective claims. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, District Consumer Forum finding no substance in complainants version dismissed the complaint.
Aggrieved against the order of the District Consumer Forum, the complainant has come up in appeal.
Heard.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the complainant had sprayed the entire pesticides in his wheat crop and nothing was with the complainant so as to send the same to the appropriate laboratory for analysis and therefore the opposite party was under an obligation to send the samples of the pesticides of same batch number for analysis to the appropriate laboratory but the opposite party failed to do so and therefore the report submitted by the Director Agriculture Department, Haryana, Panchkula established that the complainant is entitled for compensation due to the damage/loss of his wheat crop. In support of his arguments learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the judgments rendered by Honble Supreme Court cited as M/s Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. Versus Alvalapati Chandra Reddy & Ors, 1998(6) SCC 738 wherein the Honble Supreme Court upheld the observation made by State Consumer Commission, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad the relevant part of which as under:-
.if the opposite parties have disputed that the seeds were not defective they would have applied to the District Forum to send the samples of seeds from the said batch for analysis by appropriate laboratory. But the opposite parties have not chosen to file any application for sending the seeds to any laboratory. Since it is probable that the complainants have sown all the seeds purchased by them, they were not in a position to send seeds for analysis. In these circumstances, the order of the District Forum is not vitiated by th circumstances that it has not on its own accord sent the seeds for analysis by an appropriate laboratory.
In case cited as SHRI RAMA ENTERPRISES & ANR versus VENKAT REDDY, III(2003) CPJ 14 (NC), Honble National Consumer Commission has observed as under:-
3. The only point argued before us relates to not following the procedure laid down under Section 13(1)(c) of C.P. Act, 1986 In similar cases, on similar point being raised by the seed companies, we have held:
The question of sending seed for testing as per provisions i.e. Section 13(1)(c) as pointed out by the petitioner, has been gone into by us in several cases wherein we have held that this is expensive seed and farmer uses the last grain for use in any part of it foreseeing such a contingency. He purchases the seed on good faith. If any quantity of the same seed was with the petitioner they could have got it tested. It has also not been done. Since, it is not possible to get it tested, Section 13(1)(c) of C.P.A. becomes inapplicable in such a case.
This case is fully covered by the authoritative pronouncements of the Honble Supreme Court and Honble National Commission. The report produced by Agriculture Department, Haryana, Panchkula has sufficiently established that the pesticides sold to the complainant by the opposite party No.2 was of inferior quality. Admittedly, the pesticides were manufactured by the opposite party No.1. Hence, both the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant. It has come on the record that the wheat crop of complainant in 5 acres was entirely damaged. Thus, keeping in view average produce of 20 quintals of wheat in one acre land, the total produce comes to 110 quintals and by taking the price of Rs.800/- per quintal wheat in the year 2007, the total amount comes to Rs.88,000/-. Thus, the respondents-opposite parties are liable to pay compensation of Rs.88,000/- to the complainant.
In view of the above, this appeal is accepted and by setting aside the impugned order the complaint is allowed with the direction to the respondents-opposite parties to pay Rs.88,000/- to the complainant. The cost of litigation is quantified at Rs.5500/-.
The order shall be complied by the opposite parties within a period of 30 days from the date of delivery of the copy of this order.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 05.10.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member