National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Gujarat Insecticides Ltd. vs Ram Niwas & Anr. on 13 September, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4128 OF 2012 (From the order dated 01.08.2012 in First Appeal No. 2680/2007 of Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) Gujarat Insecticides Ltd. Plot No. 805/806, G.I.D.C., Ankleshwar 393002 Gujarat Through Its Deputy General Manager (Marketing) Authorised Representative ... Petitioners Versus 1. Ram Niwas s/o Ami Chand r/o Village Amargarh, Tehsil Narwana District Jind 2. M/s. Luxmi Beej Bhandaar, Mal Godown Road, Narwana District Jind Through its Proprietor Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 4129 OF 2012 (From the order dated 01.08.2012 in First Appeal No. 2681/2007 of Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) Gujarat Insecticides Ltd. Plot No. 805/806, G.I.D.C., Ankleshwar 393002 Gujarat Through Its Deputy General Manager (Marketing) Authorised Representative ... Petitioners Versus 1. Subhash s/o Atmaram r/o Village Amargarh, Tehsil Narwana District Jind 2. M/s. Luxmi Beej Bhandaar, Mal Godown Road, Narwana District Jind Through its Proprietor Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 4130 OF 2012 (From the order dated 01.08.2012 in First Appeal No. 2682/2007 of Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) Gujarat Insecticides Ltd. Plot No. 805/806, G.I.D.C., Ankleshwar 393002 Gujarat Through Its Deputy General Manager (Marketing) Authorised Representative ... Petitioners Versus 1. Dayal s/o Gopi Ram r/o Village Amargarh, Tehsil Narwana District Jind 2. M/s. Luxmi Beej Bhandaar, Mal Godown Road, Narwana District Jind Through its Proprietor Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 4131 OF 2012 (From the order dated 01.08.2012 in First Appeal No. 2683/2007 of Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) Gujarat Insecticides Ltd. Plot No. 805/806, G.I.D.C., Ankleshwar 393002 Gujarat Through Its Deputy General Manager (Marketing) Authorised Representative ... Petitioners Versus 1. Rohtash s/o Omparkash r/o Village Amargarh, Tehsil Narwana District Jind 2. M/s. Luxmi Beej Bhandaar, Mal Godown Road, Narwana District Jind Through its Proprietor Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 4132 OF 2012 (From the order dated 01.08.2012 in First Appeal No. 2684/2007 of Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) Gujarat Insecticides Ltd. Plot No. 805/806, G.I.D.C., Ankleshwar 393002 Gujarat Through Its Deputy General Manager (Marketing) Authorised Representative ... Petitioners Versus 1. Ved Parkash s/o Bhalle Ram r/o Village Amargarh, Tehsil Narwana District Jind 2. M/s. Luxmi Beej Bhandaar, Mal Godown Road, Narwana District Jind Through its Proprietor Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 4133 OF 2012 (From the order dated 01.08.2012 in First Appeal No. 2685/2007 of Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) Gujarat Insecticides Ltd. Plot No. 805/806, G.I.D.C., Ankleshwar 393002 Gujarat Through Its Deputy General Manager (Marketing) Authorised Representative ... Petitioners Versus 1. Nathu Ram s/o Surta Ram r/o Village Amargarh, Tehsil Narwana District Jind 2. M/s. Luxmi Beej Bhandaar, Mal Godown Road, Narwana District Jind Through its Proprietor Respondent(s) BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For the Petitioner(s) Mr. Pankaj Middha, Advocate For the Respondent1 Ms. Savita Dhanda, Advocate For the Respondent2 Ex-parte PRONOUNCED ON : 13th SEPTEMBER 2013 O R D E R
PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER These revision petitions have been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 1.08.2012, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State Commission) in FA Nos. 2680 2685/2007, M/s. Gujarat Insecticides Ltd. versus different respondents, vide which, while dismissing the appeals, the order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind in consumer complaint no.
236/2001 dated 10.07.2007, allowing the complaint, was upheld. This single order shall dispose of all the revision petitions and a copy of the same be placed on each file.
2. Brief facts of the case are that all the complainants are permanent residents of Village Amargarh, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind and are agriculturists by profession. The facts as taken from RP No. 4128/2005 are that the complainant purchased 5 Ltr. (Gilphos 20 E.C .) Chlorpyriphos Pesticide from OP No. 1, Laxmi Beej Bhandar, who are the sale agents of the petitioners, Gujarat Insecticides Ltd., the manufacturers of the said pesticide. It has been alleged that the said pesticide was sprayed on the cotton crop by the complainant and as per their version, the crop was completely damaged after treatment with the said pesticide. The complainant made a complaint to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Narwana, upon which the SDO, Agriculture Narwana inspected the crops of the complainants and reported about the damage due to the said pesticide. The SDO, Agriculture, Narwana also sent sample of the pesticide for chemical analysis. The complainants filed complaints before the District Forum and as per the orders passed by the said Forum, the complaints were accepted and the respondents were asked to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- jointly and severally to the complainants for damages, alongwith a sum of Rs.1,000/- as cost of proceedings. Appeals were filed against the order of the District Forum before the State Commission.
The State Commission vide impugned order dismissed the said appeals. It is against these orders of the State Commission that the present revision petitions have been made.
3. At the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad had tested the samples of the said pesticide and found that they were conforming to the relevant I.S. specifications. However, the analysis made by Quality Control Laboratory of Insecticides, Sirsa, Haryana, the samples had been stated to be misbranded. The learned counsel has drawn our attention to the copies of these reports on record, saying that as per report dated 12.12.2001 given by the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad on a reference made by Judicial Magistrate-Ist class, Narawana, the said Laboratory had stated that the sample was conforming to I.S. specifications. In another report dated 12.12.2001 made by the same Laboratory on reference from Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, Harayana, similar findings had been recorded. In report made by the same Laboratory and sent to Sub Divisional Agricultural Officer, Narwana, Harayana vide letter dated 5.10.2001, it had been stated that the sample was found non-phytotoxic to the cotton crop. On the other hand, the Sub-Divisional Agricultural Officer, Narwana has written in his report dated 24.08.2001 that there were signs of malformation on three and a half acre crop of farmer, after spraying Gilphos 20 E.C.. The plants were affected to the extent of 50% to 55%. It has also been mentioned in this report that the samples of these insecticides had been sent to C.I.L. Faridabad, Sirsa. There is a report of Quality Control Laboratory of State Agricultural Department, Haryana which has declared the samples as misbranded, after carrying out chemical analysis of the same. Learned counsel invited our attention to section 3(k) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, in which the definition of misbranded had been given. Learned counsel argued that the sample in question does not qualify to be called misbranded in accordance with the provisions contained in section 3(K). Moreover, if it is a misbranded insecticide, it is bound to be phytotoxic.
Learned counsel has also drawn our attention to some interrogatories sent to the Agricultural Development Officer, in reply to which he has admitted that malformation cannot be possible because the sample was found nontoxic to the crop. Learned counsel further argued that the same product was sold in Hisar District also. There were some complaints in that District, but the same were filed. He stated that the State Commission had ignored the evidence brought on record while pronouncing their order. The learned counsel also invited our attention to the document Package of Practices for the Crops of Punjab (Kharif) 1999 issued by the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, saying that cotton was highly sensitive to 2, 4 D weedicide. Due to the volatile nature of 2, 4 D weedicide, its vapours are carried by wind over long distances and these may cause injury to the cotton crop. It is necessary, therefore, that the spraying equipment as well as tubs, buckets, etc. should be washed with 0.5% washing soda solution; otherwise, there were chances of contamination with 2, 4 D.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, maintained that there were two concurrent findings of the State Commission and the District Forum in their favour. The complainants had acted in accordance with procedure by making complaint to the SDM, Narwana, who forwarded the same to the SDO Agriculture, Narwana and the said officer had taken action in the matter in accordance with rules. He also stated that the samples sent to the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad were forwarded at the instance of the OPs and hence they were not representative samples. The reports of the said laboratory cannot form the basis of decision in the present case.
The laboratory at Faridabad had held the samples to be misbranded and hence, the orders passed by the State Commission and District Forum reflect a correct appreciation of the material on record.
The learned counsel has drawn our attention to the orders passed by the National Commission in RP No. 3336/2011 saying that National Commission had taken a similar view in the said case as taken by the State Commission. Learned counsel also referred to the orders of the Honble Apex Court in Madhusudan Reddy versus National Seeds Corporation [2012 (2) SCC 506] in support of his arguments.
5. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. The basic issue for consideration in the present case is whether the use of Chlorpyriphos pesticides leads to any damage to the cotton crop or not. There are reports of two technical institutions, the Central Insecticide Laboratory, which is a part of the Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine and Storage, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Government of India. The other report is made by the Quality Control Laboratory of the State Agriculture Department, Haryana at Sirsa. It has been categorically stated in the report made by the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad that the sample of insecticide, in question, sent to them conforms to the relevant I.S. specifications. It has also been stated that the sample was found non-phytotoxic to the cotton crop.
In view of the clear-cut findings of the Central Insecticide Laboratory, it is not understood how the State Laboratory at Sirsa, labelled the said insecticide as misbranded.
The State Laboratory has also not explained how the insecticide falls under the definition of misbranded as contained in section 3(K) of the Insecticide Act. We have no reason to agree with the findings of the District Forum that the samples sent to the Central Laboratory were not representative samples since they were sent at the instance of the OPs. These samples have been sent under the authority of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Judicial Magistrate Ist class, and hence it cannot be stated that they were not representative samples. Even if, there are conflicting findings given by the Central Laboratory and the State Laboratory, it is very much clear that the finding of the Central Laboratory which is a part of the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, must take precedence over the views expressed by the State Laboratory. Further, even if some damage has occurred to the cotton crop, there could be some other reasons like contamination with weedicide like 2, 4 D, or due to any other reason, but it cannot be concluded that the findings given by the Central Laboratory are false by any standard.
6. Based on the discussion above, these revisions petitions are allowed and the orders passed by the State Commission and District Forum are set aside. The complaints, in question, are ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(K.S. CHAUDHARI J.) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/-
(DR. B.C. GUPTA) MEMBER RS/