National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. vs Kopolu Sambasiva Rao And Ors. on 12 May, 2005
Equivalent citations: IV(2005)CPJ47(NC)
ORDER
P.D. Shenoy, Member
1. This case pertains to the complaints of 28 Agriculturalists from the different villages of Kurnool District who raised commercial cotton seed crop and their lands had allegedly suffered heavily after spraying 'Hilquin' 25' EC manufactured by Hindustan Insecticides Ltd.
2. The District Forum, Kurnool after going through the case in great detail held that M/s. Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. and their dealers are responsible for selling sub-standard insecticides which resulted in failure of cotton crops and allowed the complaint partly and directed them to pay compensation to the farmers for loss suffered by them. Against the decision of the District Forum, Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. went in appeal before the State Commission. After hearing the parties, the State Commission dismissed the appeal as they found that the District Forum's order is reasonable and the payment ordered to be made to the famers is based on the evidence on record which cannot be said to be unreasonable or excessive.
3. Aggrieved and dissatisfied by the Order of the State Commission, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. has come up in Revision Petition before us.
4. The case of the Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. is that they had asked the Agriculture Department to take samples of the insecticides from the same pack which was used in Nandyal Village, Kurnool District where the complainants hailed from, was found to be conforming to the ISI standard. The farmers in fact had used strong doses. The petitioner contended that before filing the complaint in the District Forum, these were conducted by the Quality Control Inspector who had taken the sample from the premises of M/s. Yelisetty Fertilizers who is one of the dealers in this case. The report dated 8.10.1992 indicates that it was as per the ISI Standards. The sample was also analysed for possible admixture with herbicide, Isoproturon. However, the sample was not found to contain isoproturon. Hence there was no deficiency in their service.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the report of Assistant Director of Agriculture, Pesticide Laboratory, Guntur and also the report of Central Insecticide Laboratory, Rajenderanagar were obtained behind their back as the said samples were not taken in their presence and notice of sending the same to the said laboratories was not given to them.
6. Learned Counsel for the respondents, Mr. G.N. Reddy submitted that no doubt the report of the Insecticide Analyst, Office of the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Pesticides Laboratory, Guntur shows that 'Quinalphos 24.08% as per ISI No. 8028-1987 "Permissible". But there is no proof that the sample was taken from out of balance of 220 Itrs. which remained unsold. No Panchanama was conducted and no notice was given to the complainants to verify whether the sample was being taken from the balance of 220 Itrs. only. Neither the Inspectors who took out the samples nor the analyst who conducted tests were examined.
7. Mr. Reddy further submitted that Associate Director of Research from Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University has issued a report of diagnostic team which visited cotton hybrid plots of NHH-44 at Mitnala and Santajutur villages, where malformation of cotton crop was noticed due to spraying of HILQUIN insecticide of HH Ltd.
8. This report of the diagnostic team which visited the village states that:
"An area of about 52.00 acres sown with NHH 44 cotton hybrid was affected due to spraying of HILQUIN of Hindustan Insecticides Ltd.; at 60 days after sowing. The farmers have ued HILQUIN @ 40 ml./15 litres of water 60 to 70 day of sowing. After 8-10 days of spraying crop has shown abnormal symptoms in top portion of the plant (NHH-44 cotton hybrids). The symptoms are abnormal formalities like elongation of leaves, bracteoles, flowers, etc. (2) Thickening of leaves (3) Malformation of squares."
9. We have heard the arguments and gone through records after case.
(a) The main issue involved is whether the cotton crop was adversely affected by spraying Hilquin 25' EC supplied by the dealer of Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. The complainants relied upon the report of the diagnostic team which indicated the abnormalities of the cotton crop. It is useful to note the conclusions of their report.
Conclusion:
(1) The technical formulation of HILQUIN is to be got analysed by the department of Agriculture.
(2) In addition to the technical formulation the filler materials is also to be analysed.
(3) If any addition of growth hormones added in the chemical also be evaluated.
(Emphasis supplied) Hence, it is apparent that the report is not a conclusive proof without further tests.
(b) As against this the manufacturer had contended that the test conducted by the Quality Control Inspector who had taken the sample from the premises of the dealer M/s. Yelisetty Fertilisers indicated that it was as per ISI standards. Further, the company has submitted that-
"Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine and Storage, Central Insecticides Laboratory had also certified after the tests on 19.4.1993 that the sample conforms to 'quinalphos active ingredient' requirement."
It is true that the samples were not taken in the presence of the user farmers.
10. Crops can fail due to various reasons viz., poor quality of seeds, fertilizers, inadequate rainfall or irrigation, and also due to poor quality or inadequate or overdose of pesticides/ insecticides. Therefore, whether the cotton crop failed due to poor quality of insecticides is required to be proved by reliable evidence or the procedure prescribed by law. In this connection, it would be useful to go through Section 13(1)(c), Consumer Protection Act for sending the samples to the analysis. This was not done.
11. Complainant should have produced the sample before the District Forum for getting it analysed or as has been advised by the Diagnostic Team of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University. Samples should have been got drawn from the material with the complainant and got it tested.
12. It was for the complainants or their Advocates or for the District Forum to take appropriate steps as per the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act. That was not done. Hence, there is no reason to discard the report submitted by the Quality Control Inspector. Both the lower fora had not appreciated the relevant facts and the Law before discarding the report of Quality Control Inspector. There is nothing in the report to arrive at a conclusion that because of inferior pesticides/insecticides, the cotton crop raised by the complainants was affected.
13. Hence, Revision Petitions are allowed. Impugned orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum are set aside. Complaints are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.