State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Krishan vs Chauhan Khad Beej Bhandar on 29 April, 2022
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.318 of 2017 Date of Institution:20.03.2017 Date of Decision: 29.04.2022 Krishan S/o Baljit R/o Village Pabsara, Tehsil Rai, District Sonepat .....Appellant Versus Chauhan Khad Beej Bhandar Village Khurampur, Tehsil and District Sonepat through its prop. Devender Chauhan .....Respondent CORAM: Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial Member
Mr. Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member Present:- Mr. Ashish Rana proxy counsel for Mr. A.K.Goyal, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Sant Kashyap, Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Delay of 30 days in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application filed for condonation of delay.
2. Briefly stated, the facts narrated in the complaint are that complainant took 4 ½ Acre of agriculture land on lease from Jassu in the month of April 2015 for a period of two years for an amount of Rs.40,000/- per acre per year. The complainant purchased seeds of Chappal Tinda for an amount of Rs.15000/- from opposite party (OP) in the month of December 2015 and for the cultivation of the vegetable, the complainant had spent an amount of Rs.15000/- and also spent Rs.20,000/- for using fertilizer, potas and calcium etc. in the field. He purchased pesticide of Rs,.2240/- vide bill no.597 dated 14.03.2016 for spraying the same in the field to save chappal tinda vegetable from insecticide etc. As per instructions of OPs, the complainant had sprayed the pesticides in his field to save the vegetable crops from insecticide., but, after three days, all the chappal tinda vegetables have turned black and crops started damaged. On 18.03.2016, he moved an application to DDA Inspector of concerned department for inspection of damaged crops, upon which, the officials have inspected the damaged crops and found that whole crops of chappal tinda upto 80% have been damaged due to spray of pesticides. He requested the OPs to compensate him but of no use. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs
3. The complaint has been resisted by the O.Ps No.1 and 3 in which, O.Ps No.1 and 3 alleged that pesticide Dhanraj (Acephate 75% SP) the product of O.Ps were only meant for use over the cotton and sunflower crops and not for chappal tinda vegetable. OPs were not liable for any loss caused to him. The complainant has purchased three different chemicals compositions made by three different manufacturers. The inspecting team and its members were not competent to adjudge the reason of the failure of crops. The loss caused by complainant was due to his own negligence or over intelligence. Thus no liability can be fastened upon the OPs. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
4. OP No.2 failed to appear despite service, hence he was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 10.11.2016.
5. After hearing both the parties, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sonepat (In short "District Commission") dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 11.01.2017.
6. Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.
7. This argument has been advanced by Sh.Ashish Rana proxy counsel for Mr.A.K.Goyal, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Sant Kashyap, the learned counsel for the respondent. With their kind assistance the entire records as well as the original record of the District Commission including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of parties had also been properly perused and examined.
8. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that complainant has sprayed the pesticide of soloman, Section Bayer Ompany, Dhanraj in his field. The whole crops of chappal tinda upto 80% have been damaged due to spray of pesticide of OPs. Upon complaint, the experts inspected the field and reported that whole crops of chappal tinda upto 80% have been damaged due to spray of pesticide. The appellant is entitled for the compensation as prayed for.
9. The counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that that notice must be served to the OPs before visiting the field by the expert committee.
As per instructions, a notice is must before visiting the field. As per opinion of Hon'ble National Commission expressed in Indian Farmers fertilizers co-operative Vs. Bhup Singh in revision petition No.2144 of 2014 decided on 09.04.2015 such report cannot be relied upon if notice was not issued to O.Ps. before visit. The relevant portion of the said judgement is reproduced as under:-
"6. Perusal of inspection report clearly reveals that inspection was made by a team of B.A.O., S.M.S. (PP) and SDAO whereas, as per circular of Director of Agriculture, Haryana dated 03.01.2002 fields were to be inspected by a committee comprising of two officers of Agriculture Department, one representative of concerned seed agency and scientist of KGK/KVK. Admittedly, inspection was not carried out after due notice to representative of OP and Scientist was not called and admittedly, not in their presence. In such circumstances, inspection report made by some officers of Agriculture Department cannot be acted upon and on the basis of this report, it cannot be inferred that seeds were not of standard quality, particularly, when these seeds were certified by Haryana State Seed Certification Agency. Learned District Forum and learned State Commission wrongly observed that non formation of team as per circular of director of Agriculture was not fault of the complainant. At the time of inspection, complainant should have asked the inspecting team to intimate OP as well Scientist for carrying out inspection and as inspection has not been done by the duly constituted committee, no reliance can be placed on this inspection report and no deficiency can be attributed on the part of the petitioner.
7. In R.P.No.1451 of 2011-Syngenta India Ltd. Vs. P. Chowdaiah, P.Sreenivasulu and Sai Agro Agencies it was observed that inspection without notice to OP is against the principles of natural justice and no reliance was placed on inspection report as it was not supplied to the OP to present his view on the report. He also placed reliance on the judgment of this commission in R.P.No.4280 to 4282 of 2007-Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd. Vs. Sreenivasa Reddy & Ors. In which it was observed as under:-
"Hon'ble Supreme court in Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs.Sadhu & Anr. II (2005) SLT 569=11 (2005) CPJ 13 SC=(2005) 3 SCC 198 as well as in Mahyco Seeds Co. Ltd. Vs.Basappa Channappa Mooki & Ors. Civil Appeal No.2428/2008, has held that variation in condition of crops need not necessarily be attributed to quality of seeds but to other factors unless there is specific mention in the concerned report about the inferior quality of seeds. The apex court has held that the onus to prove that there was a defect in the seeds was on the complainant.
8. In the light of aforesaid judgments it becomes clear that report obtained by the complainant without notice to OP cannot be relied upon and learned District Forum fell in error while holding deficiency in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal and revision petition is liable to be allowed."
10. In view of the opinion of Hon'ble National Commission expressed in aforesaid case law inspection report cannot be relied upon. There is no other evidence about loss alleged to be suffered by complainant.
11. It is not disputed that the complainant purchased the pesticide for Rs.2240/- vide bill No.597 dated 14.03.2016 from the OPs (Annexure A1). It is also admitted that upon complaint Annexure A-2, a committee was constituted. Though, there is a report prepared by the officials of the OPs vide dated 18.03.2016 , which reveals that the complainant sprayed the pesticide of soloman, Section Bayer Ompany, Dhanraj in his field. The whole crops of chappal tinda upto 80% have been damaged. The complainant has purchased three different chemicals compositions made by three different manufacturers. Since the complainant has wrongly sprayed the pesticides on the crop, the appellant is not entitled for any relief. The complainant in this case could not produce any documentary evidence regarding the amount spent for providing fertilizer and the amount spent for cultivation of the land. Merely on the basis of statement of the complainant in his affidavit, findings cannot be given that the complainant might have spent so much amount for preparation of his land, for cultivation of his land, for providing fertilizer etc. The complainant did not make any effort for obtaining expert report to the effect that the pesticide provided to the complainant were of poor quality and poor quality of the crop was due to sub-standard and poor quality of the pesticide.
12. From the pleadings and evidence on the file it is almost clear that there was no problem regarding germination of the seeds. There may be so many reasons of poor germination, poor yield and poor quality of the crop. Germination as well as quality and quantity of yield depends upon the climatic conditions, nature of soil, proper irrigation and use of manure, fertilizer and pesticides. In these circumstances findings can be given that cause of poor quality and quantity of vegetable may not be due to quality of pesticide but may be due to other reasons also, as mentioned above.
13. Keeping in mind all the circumstances, findings can be safely given that the complainant failed to prove that it was a case of sub standard pesticides. The complainant also failed to prove that pesticides supplied to the complainant were of poor quality and sub-standard or that poor quality and sub-standard of the pesticides was the cause of crop. Learned District Forum had taken a legal and perspective observation while dismissing the complaint. No interference was required. Hence the present appeal is devoid of merits and stands dismissed.
29th April, 2022 Suresh Chander Kaushik S. P. Sood Member Judicial Member S.K (Pvt. Secy.)