State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bayer Cropscience Limited vs Surjit Singh on 1 March, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
S.C.O. NO. 3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.846 of 2005
Date of institution : 14.6.2005
Date of decision : 1.3.2011
BAYER CROPSCIENCE LIMITED, BAYER HOUSE, CENTRAL AVENUE,
HRNANDNI GARDEN, DHOVI, MUMBAI THROUGH SH. VIKRAMJIT
SINGH S/O SH. TILAK RAJ, REGIONAL MANAGER.
.......Appellant
Versus
1. SURJIT SINGH SON OF KARTAR SINGH SON OF DALIP SINGH,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE FATEHPUR MANNIANWALA, TEHSIL
MALOUT, DISTRICT MUKTSAR.
..........Complainant/Respondent
2. M/S JAGDISH RAI KAMRA & SONS, THROUGH JAGDISH RAI
OWNER GUR BAZAR, MALOUT, TEHSIL MALOUT, DISTRICT
MUKTSAR.
......Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 4.11.2004 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Muktsar.
Before :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal President.
Mrs. Amarpreet Sharma, Member.
Mr. B.S. Sekhon, Member.
Present :-
For the appellants : Shri S.S. Kahlon Advocate. For respondent No.1 : Shri K.S. Sekhon, Advocate. For respondent No.2 : Ex parte.
JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
Surjit Singh respondent No.1 (in short "the respondent") was an agriculturist. He had cultivated 45 acres of land in Fatehpur Mannian, Tehsil Malout. It includes the land which was taken on lease by him. First Appeal No.846 of 2005. 2
2. It was further pleaded that on 22.1.2004 the respondent had purchased pesticide from the shop of M/s Jagdish Rai Kamra & Sons respondent No.2 for a sum of Rs.30,400/-. It was manufactured by the appellants. It was sprayed by the respondent on his wheat crops. 4/5 days after the spray, the crops of the respondent started suffering the damage. It was because of the defective pesticide sold by respondent No.2 to the respondent.
3. It was further pleaded that immediately the respondent contacted respondent No.2 and lodged the complaint with him. Respondent No.2 had assured to visit the fields of the respondent himself but he failed to do so. The respondent filed an application to the Block Agriculture Officer, Lambi who directed the Agriculture Development Officer, Abulkhurana to visit the fields of the respondent and to report the matter.
4. It was further pleaded that accordingly the Agriculture Development Officer, Abulkhurana visited the fields of the respondent and submitted his report dated 25.2.2004 in which he reported that misbranded pesticide was sold to the respondent. The respondent pleaded that he suffered the loss of Rs.40,000/-, he had spent a sum of Rs.30,400/- on purchasing pesticide and Rs.50,000/- was spent by him in preparing the land for sowing the crop. Neither the appellants nor respondent No.2 compensated the respondent. Hence the complaint for recovery of these amounts. Compensation and costs were also prayed.
5. Respondent No.2 filed the written reply. It was denied if the respondent was a consumer qua respondent No.2. The complaint was frivolous. The respondent had not come to the court with clean hands.
6. It was, however, admitted that the respondent was resident of Village Fatehpur Mannian but other facts were denied including the visit by the Agriculture Development Officer, Abulkhurana to the fields of the respondent. The pesticide purchased by the respondent from his shop was of standard quality First Appeal No.846 of 2005. 3 and, therefore, question of damage to the crop did not arise. Hence dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
7. The appellants also filed written reply. Almost similar pleadings were made by the appellants and dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
8. The respondent proved the report of Agriculture Development Officer, Abulkhurana dated 25.2.2001 as Ex.C-1. He also proved his affidavit Ex.C-2. The bill given by respondent No.2 in favour of the respondent dated 22.1.2004 was proved as Ex.C-3. The photographs and negatives were proved as Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-7. Jamabandis were proved as Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-14. He also proved empty containers of pesticides as Ex.C-15 and Ex.C-16. The respondent also filed the affidavit of Iqbal Singh as Ex.C-17. Manjit Singh, Agriculture Development Officer, Abulkhurana was subjected to cross-examination and was cross-examined at length.
9. On the other hand, respondent No.2 filed the affidavit of Jagdish Rai as Ex.OP-1.
10. The appellants filed the affidavit of Vikramjit Singh, Regional Manager as Ex.OP-2.
11. Learned District Forum accepted the complaint with costs of Rs.5,000/- vide impugned order dated 4.11.2004. The appellants being the manufacturers were directed to refund the amount of Rs.30,400/- as price of the pesticides and to pay another amount of Rs.45,000/- as compensation for the loss suffered by the respondent.
12. Hence the appeal.
13. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that in compliance of the report dated 25.2.2004 Ex.C-1 of the Agriculture Development Officer, Abulkhurana, sample of the pesticide was accordingly taken from the shop of respondent No.2 on 2.3.2004 (AnnexureA-5 filed along with the appeal) but the report was not produced. Therefore it is not proved if the pesticide First Appeal No.846 of 2005. 4 purchased by the respondent from the shop of respondent No.2 and manufactured by the appellants was defective. Hence it was prayed that the appeal be accepted and the impugned order dated 4.11.2004 be set aside.
14. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
15. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
16. The respondent had pleaded in para 2 of the complaint that he had purchased the pesticide from the shop of respondent No.2 on 22.1.2004 against bill No.4283 for a sum of Rs.30,400/-. Although Respondent No.2 in preliminary objection No.4 had pleaded that the pesticide purchased by the respondent was of standard quality but these facts were denied by respondent No.2 in corresponding paragraph 2 of the written statement filed by him. However respondent also proved it by producing the bill No.4283 dated 22.1.2004 which is on the bill pad of respondent No.2 by which the respondent had purchased Atlantic pesticides manufactured by the appellants for a sum of Rs.30,400/- Ex.C-3. It is really sad on the part of respondent No.2 having denied the purchase of pesticide by the respondent from his shop for a sum of Rs.30,400/- vide bill dated 22.1.2004 in corresponding paragraph 2 on merits and indirectly admitting the same in preliminary objection no.4 of the written statement. This appears to be a clever move on the part of respondent No.2.
17. Even the appellants while filing he written reply denied in para 2 if the respondent had purchased any pesticide from the shop of respondent No.2 but it was pleaded by the appellants in para 4 of the preliminary objections that the appellants were a known Company in the crops science and it manufactures the quality products. The herbicides purchased by the respondent was of standard quality and, therefore, the question of any defect in it did not arise. The First Appeal No.846 of 2005. 5 appellants also denied on merits but admitted the same in preliminary objections (Para 4). This conduct of the appellants was also condemnable.
18. It is also proved by the jamabandi Ex.C-10 that the respondent was the co- owner in the agricultural land. It is also proved by the jamabandi Ex.C-12 that the respondent was cultivating the land.
19. Otherwise also if the respondent had not been an agriculturist or if he had not sown the wheat crop, he would not have purchased the pesticide from the shop of respondent No.2 which was manufactured by the appellants.
20. It is also proved by the respondent that he had lodged a complaint dated 10.2.2004 with the Block Agriculture Development Officer, Lambi who deputed the Agriculture Development Officer, Abulkhurana to visit the fields of the respondent and to submit his report. The Agriculture Development Officer, Abulkhurana had also specifically mentioned in his report dated 25.2.2004 that he had gone to the fields of the respondent on 20.2.2004. He had seen the fields of the respondent. There were three separate plots (Taks) of fields of the respondent. It is further stated in the report that the respondent had told him that after he had sprayed the pesticide, the wheat crop had started suffering the damage. The farmer had also shown to him the bill and the empty pesticide boxes. These tallied with each other. He inspected all the three fields of the respondent. Wheat crop was sown in two fields little earlier. Some wheat crop plants were looking burnt with the pesticide but some plants were found having suffered the less effect and these were re-emerging. Another plot of five acres of land was also seen by him in which the wheat crop was burnt as it was sown with some delay. He also assessed the average loss suffered by the respondent. It was found to be about 1 quintal and 15 kilograms less than the normal yield per acre.
21. The report of the Agriculture Development Officer, Abulkhurana, therefore, clearly proves that the wheat crop of the respondent had suffered the First Appeal No.846 of 2005. 6 loss because of the spray of the pesticide which was purchased by the respondent from the shop of respondent No.2 and which was manufactured by the appellants. This official had also tendered himself for cross-examination and he was cross-examined at length by the appellants and respondent No.2. He admitted in the cross-examination that he did not hold any degree and diploma in Pathology but this does not shake the credibility of the inspection report Ex.C-1. This official, namely, Manjit Singh was the Agriculture Development Officer, Abulkhurana. He possesses not only some qualification and expertise in examining the wheat plants and finding out the reasons for its damage but also experience.
22. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that respondent No.2 was also present at the time of inspection but the presence of respondent No.2 was not marked in the inspection report. That also does not make much difference. Manjit Singh Agriculture Development Officer, Abulkhurana was neither interested in the respondent nor he was inimical to respondent No.2 or to the appellants. He was performing his official duties which are presumed to be true unless proved to the contrary.
23. If the Agriculture Development Officer had visited the fields of the farmer after giving notice to the respondents or to the appellants, he could have never visited the fields of the farmer because the dealers as also the manufacturers could have taken some excuses from appearing in the fields of the respondent on the given date and time in order to escape from liability. They would have taken some objection or the other for accompanying the Agriculture Development Officer to the fields of the farmer complaining the defect in the pesticide etc. Therefore even if the fields of the respondent were inspected by the Agriculture Development Officer, Abulkhurana in the absence of the appellants or respondent No.2 it cannot shake the credibility of his inspection report Ex.C-1. First Appeal No.846 of 2005. 7
24. Another submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the Agriculture Development Officer, Abulkhurana in his report dated 25.2.2004 Ex.C-1 had recommended that a sample of the pesticide be taken. The sample of the pesticide was accordingly taken from the shop of respondent No.2 on 2.3.2004 but no report has been proved if the contents of the said sample were found to be defective or inferior. Rather the respondent filed the complaint against the appellants and respondent No.2 on 1.3.2004 without waiting for the report.
25. It may be mentioned that the Agriculture Development Officer, Abulkhurana in his report dated 25.2.2004 had recommended the sample being taken from the pesticide purchased by the respondent from the shop of respondent No.2 in his report Ex.C-1 but neither the appellants nor respondent No.2 had produced on the file in the District Forum any proof if the sample was taken from their shop. So much so in the written statement also no such plea was taken by the appellants or respondent No.2 if the sample of pesticide was taken from their shop of that pesticide which was purchased by the respondent from the shop of respondent No.2. Admittedly the sample of the pesticide was not taken from the shop of respondent No.2 till 1.3.2004 when the respondent had filed the present complaint in the District Forum.
26. It appears that the appellants and respondent No.2 manipulated the taking of sample of the pesticide from the shop of respondent No.2 on 2.3.2004 in Form-XX Annexure A-5 (filed along with the appeal by the appellants) after the respondent had filed complaint against them. If the sample was taken from the shop of respondent No.2, then the appellants were also duty bound to produce on the file along with the appeal, the report from the laboratory to the effect that the sample of the pesticide taken from the shop of respondent No.2 was found to be in order and it was of proper standard. Therefore the appellants cannot avail any benefit from the sample taking report dated 2.3.2004 Annexure P-5 when the First Appeal No.846 of 2005. 8 respondent had already filed a complaint against the appellants and respondent No.2 on 1.3.2004 and particularly because the appellants have failed to produce on the file the report of the laboratory verifying the pesticide to be of standard quality.
27. Reference may be made to the latest judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission reported as "INDIA SEED HOUSE v. RAMJILAL SHARMA & ANR." III(2008) CPJ 96 (NC) in which it was held as under:-
"Secondly, it is not expected from every buyer of the seeds to set apart some quantity of seeds for testing on the presumption that seeds would be defective and he would be called upon to prove the same through laboratory testing. On the other hand, a senior officer of the Government had visited the field and inspected the crop and given report under his hand and seal, clearly certifying that the seeds were defective.
36. In the present case, therefore, respondent No.1 is a farmer. He purchased the seed and sown the same and developed nursery from the seed. Thereafter he transplanted the nursery in his fields.
He had no part of the seed in his possession to get it tested from the laboratory to know the variety of the seed. He got the standing crops inspected from the Agricultural Development Officer who after inspection gave a detailed report Ex.C13 and reported that the seed was of mixed and inferior quality."
28. The ratio of law laid down in Ramji Lal Sharma's case (supra) which is applicable to inferior quality of seed would also apply to inferior quality of pesticides.
First Appeal No.846 of 2005. 9
29. In view of the discussion held above, we find no illegality in the impugned order dated 4.11.2004 passed by the learned District Forum.
30. There is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-. The appellants being the manufacturers would alone be liable to pay the amount.
31. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 14.6.2005. This amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
32. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent.
33. The arguments in this case were heard on 22.2.2011 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
34. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL)
PRESIDENT
(MRS. AMARPREET SHARMA)
MEMBER
March 1, 2011 (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)
Bansal MEMBER