State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Vizien Organics vs Shyam Singh on 9 December, 2022
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
FA No.67 / 2022.
Vizien Organics,
Through Managing Director,
312, Ambar Tower, Commercial Complex,
Azadpur, Delhi - 110 033. .... APPELLANT.
Versus
1.Shyam Singh, s/o Badra Prasad, Gram Kuhigwadi, District Harda, Madhya Pradesh.
2. Samarth Krishi Seva Kendra, Gram Tajpura, District Harda.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture Department, Khandwa Bypass Road, Harda (M.P.). ....RESPONDENTS.
FA No.68 / 2022.
Vizien Organics, Through Managing Director, 312, Ambar Tower, Commercial Complex, Azadpur, Delhi - 110 033. .... APPELLANT.
Versus
1. Bhaiyalal s/o Bhau Kahar, Gram Kuhigwadi, District Harda, Madhya Pradesh.
2. Samarth Krishi Seva Kendra, Gram Tajpura, District Harda.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture Department, Khandwa Bypass Road, Harda (M.P.). ....RESPONDENTS.
- 2- FA No.69 / 2022.
Vizien Organics, Through Managing Director, 312, Ambar Tower, Commercial Complex, Azadpur, Delhi - 110 033. .... APPELLANT.
Versus
1. Rajendra Prasad, s/o Sunderlal, Gram Tajpasi, District Harda, Madhya Pradesh.
2. Samarth Krishi Seva Kendra, Gram Tajpura, District Harda.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture Department, Khandwa Bypass Road, Harda (M.P.). ....RESPONDENTS.
FA No.70 / 2022.
Vizien Organics, Through Managing Director, 312, Ambar Tower, Commercial Complex, Azadpur, Delhi - 110 033. .... APPELLANT.
Versus
1. Jeewan Singh, s/o Ramlal Rajput, Gram Tajpura, District Harda, Madhya Pradesh.
2. Samarth Krishi Seva Kendra, Gram Tajpura, District Harda.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture Department, Khandwa Bypass Road, Harda (M.P.). ....RESPONDENTS.
FA No.71 / 2022.
Vizien Organics, Through Managing Director, 312, Ambar Tower, Commercial Complex, Azadpur, Delhi - 110 033. .... APPELLANT.
- 3- Versus
1. Balwant Singh, s/o Mangilal Mourya, Gram Tajpura, District Harda, Madhya Pradesh.
2. Samarth Krishi Seva Kendra, Gram Tajpura, District Harda.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture Department, Khandwa Bypass Road, Harda (M.P.). ....RESPONDENTS.
FA No.72 / 2022.
Vizien Organics, Through Managing Director, 312, Ambar Tower, Commercial Complex, Azadpur, Delhi - 110 033. .... APPELLANT.
Versus
1. Bhagirath s/o Mahatab Singh, Jitendra s/o Bhagirath, Gram Tahajpura, District Harda, Madhya Pradesh.
2. Samarth Krishi Seva Kendra, Gram Tajpura, District Harda.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture Department, Khandwa Bypass Road, Harda (M.P.). ....RESPONDENTS.
FA No.73 / 2022.
Vizien Organics, Through Managing Director, 312, Ambar Tower, Commercial Complex, Azadpur, Delhi - 110 033. .... APPELLANT.
Versus
1. Sohag Singh, s/o Ramadhar Rajput, Gram Gondagaonkhurd, District Harda, Madhya Pradesh.
- 4-
2. Samarth Krishi Seva Kendra, Gram Tajpura, District Harda.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture Department, Khandwa Bypass Road, Harda (M.P.). ....RESPONDENTS.
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, PRESIDENT HON'BLE SHRI S. S. BANSAL, MEMBER HON'BLE DR. (SMT) MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE PARTIES :
Shri Umeshwar Dayal, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Dinesh Yadav & Ms. Sambhavna Rajput, learned counsel for the respondent / complainants.
Shri Sandeep Guru, learned counsel for the respondent / Samarth Krishi Seva Kendra. None for the respondent / Deputy Director, Department of Agriculture.
ORDER (Passed on 09 /12 / 2022) The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr. (Smt) Monika Malik : Member :
All the aforesaid appeals are taken up together as common point is involved in the matter. This order shall govern disposal of all the aforesaid appeals. For convenience facts of the case are taken from FA No.67 /2022 unless otherwise stated.
- 5-
2. This appeal by the opposite party no.1 / Vizien Organics (hereinafter referred to as 'appellant') is directed against the order dated 30.12.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Harda (for short the 'District Commission') in CC No.139/2018 whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the respondent no.1 / complainant.
3. Briefly put the complainant had approached the District Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on part of the opposite parties by selling sub-standard fungicide product named as 'Savera' Carbendazim 12% + Mancozeb 63% WP, Systemic and Contact Fungicide. It is alleged by the complainant that after using this product the germination of seeds sown by him in his agricultural land was affected badly.
4. The District Commission after consideration of the contentions of all the parties and, on appreciation of the evidence available on record held that the fungicide powder sold by the appellant was not of optimum quality. The District Commission held the opposite party no.1 deficient in service and found it responsible for selling defective product to the agriculturists, which resulted in loss of crop yield.
5. Heard.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant / manufacturer made a submission that the District Commission has committed error while passing the -6- impugned order. The product in question which was sold to the agriculturists was not to be used in the soyabean crop. The recommendation for use of the subject product is clearly mentioned in the leaflet which is available on record of the District Commission, but the District Commission has ignored the same. The District Commission has further erred in commenting upon the composition and alleged poor quality of the product in question, without realizing that the complainant had alleged that he had used the subject product after mixing the same with the seeds, which is contrary to the recommended usage of the product. It is argued that the subject product, which is a fungicide, was to be used for diseases developed on the plant, obtained after germination. The complainant had used the subject product against its recommended usage and, therefore, he could not obtain the desired benefits. Therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid, it cannot be held that the product was of inferior quality, as has been held by the District Commission.
7. On going through the impugned order and the record of the District Commission it is apparently clear that the complainant had used the aforesaid product after mixing it with the seeds, before sowing. The appellant has stated that the product was used against the recommendation. Although the District
- 7-
Commission has recorded details as aforesaid but it has further went on commenting about the composition of the product in question and held it to be of inferior quality.
Counsel for the appellant had specifically pointed out that the product in question was not to be used at the time of sowing of the seeds and has given mention of another product named as 'Bayer' Fenos Quick, stating that this product is specifically recommended for pre-treatment of the seeds and not the product manufactured by the appellant.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion we are of considered view that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside and the case deserves to be remanded to the District Commission. The District Commission is expected to examine whether the subject product was used in accordance with its recommendation, after verifying the technical details, rather than commenting in a generalized manner. The District Commission is hereby also directed to decide the liabilities, if any, of the opposite parties, on the individual basis and their roles and responsibilities accordingly, on the basis of circumstances of each and every case.
9. The impugned order is therefore, set-aside. The case is remanded back to the District Commission for decision afresh.
10. The parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 24.1.2023. Record be sent at the earliest.
- 8-
11. All contentions of the parties are kept open. The parties are at liberty to file additional evidence in support of their respective contentions as per directions of the District Commission within the specified time frame. The District Commission is directed to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.
12. Needless to mention that the observations made hereinabove shall not come in the way of the District Commission while deciding the dispute involved in the matter.
13. The appeals are accordingly disposed of.
14. This order be retain in FA No.67/2022 and a copy of the same be kept in the record of FA No.68/2022 to 73/2022.
(Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar) (S. S. Bansal) (Dr. Monika Malik)
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Phadke