National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Choudhary Amar Kumar vs M/S. Hardari Lal Raj Kumar & Anr. on 5 January, 2024
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1741 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 30/08/2013 in Appeal No. 1457/2009 of the State Commission Punjab) 1. CHOUDHARY AMAR KUMAR S/O SH.SURJA RAM., R/O CHAUDHARIAN WALI GALI, MALOUT, TEHSIL MALOUT, DISTRICT : MUKTSAR PUNJAB ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. HARDARI LAL RAJ KUMAR & ANR. TUR BAZAR, MALOUT , DISTRICT : MUKHTSAR PUNJAB 2. NAGAARJUNA PESTICIDES, THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR, RESPOSIBLE PERSON, NACL-LUDHIANA GODOWN, SHOP NO-42-43,GROUND FLOOR, GILL ROAD, BEHIND ARORA PALACE, LUDHIANA - 141003 PUNJAB ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA,PRESIDING MEMBER
FOR THE PETITIONER : MR. S.M. WADEHRA, ADVOCATE. FOR THE RESPONDENT : MR. ADITYA NAYYAR, ADVOCATE.
Dated : 05 January 2024 ORDER
JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER
This Revision Petition has been filed by the Complainant Choudhary Amar Kumar under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned Order dated 30.08.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in F.A. No. 1457 of 2009, vide which the Appeal filed by the Complainant was allowed, and the Order of the District Forum was set-aside.
2. The factual background, in brief, is that the Complainant sowed American Cotton (Narma Crop) in 54 acres of land after taking the same on lease from the original owners. The crop was sown with a drill-machine and was mixed with one bag of DAP fertilizer per acre. The condition of the crop was very good and it flowered and turned into cotton balls. Thereafter, due to attack of an insect 'Milli Bugh', the Complainant contacted Respondent No. 1 about the condition of the crop. The Respondent No. 1 recommended 'Profex' (Prophenophoss) and assured him that it will give good results. The Complainant subsequently purchased 30 litres of the said pesticide from the Respondent No. 1 and sprayed it on 54 acres of crop, strictly according to the recommendations by the Respondent No. 1. After 4-5 days of spraying the pesticide, the Complainant noticed that the fruit of the crop, i.e. cotton balls started burning and in a few days, 70-80% of the fruit was burnt. The Complainant brought this to the notice of the Respondent No. 1, and asked for compensation, but there was no response. The Complainant then moved an application before the Agriculture Department for inspection of the crop and it confirmed the burning of the crop vide a detailed report dated 11.09.2007. Aggrieved by the spurious and defective pesticide being sold by the Respondent No. 1, and manufactured by the Respondent No. 2, he filed his Complaint before District Forum, Muktsar.
The District Forum vide its Order dated 17.08.2009 dismissed the Complaint after observing that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents. The Complainant filed his Appeal before the State Commission, which vide the impugned Order dated 30.08.2013 allowed the same, and set-aside the Order of the District Forum, besides directing the Respondent No. 1 to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the Complainant.
Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the State Commission failed to award the amount of compensation of Rs. 19,99,000/- as was prayed for in the complaint on account of damage to the crop, as also the litigation costs incurred before the District Forum; That there was grave deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the Respondents for selling the spurious pesticides; That the condition of the crop had worsened only after spraying of the pesticide and therefore, the Respondents are responsible for compensating the Petitioner appropriately. Ld. Counsel for Petitioner has cited the case of "Traders Syndicate v. Union of India, AIR 1983 Calcutta 327" in support of his contentions.
In compliance of an Order dated 17.11.2023, Ld. Counsel for Petitioner has filed the official notification pertaining to the MSP of the crop in the concerned year.
This Commission has heard both the Ld. Counsel of the Petitioners and the Respondent; and perused the material available on record.
No Appeal against the impugned Order of the Ld. State Commission has been preferred on behalf of the Respondents/ Opposite Party(ies). Consequently, they are in no position to raise any challenge to the finding that there was deficiency in service on their part, in as much as the seeds they supplied to the Petitioner/Complainant were of poor/defective quality, which caused loss to him. On the other hand, it is the Complainant who is aggrieved with the impugned decision, as his contention is that the loss actually suffered by him was much more than the rounded off figure of Rs. 2.00 lakhs awarded to him as compensation by the Ld. State Commission. Consequently, this Commission is to consider as to whether or not the quantum of compensation arrived at or directed to be paid by the State Commission, is fair and adequate.
Now in the relevant Para 33 of the impugned judgment, the Ld. State Commission arrived at the lumpsum compensation of Rs. 2.00 lakhs in the following manner - "33.Except the report of the A.D.O., there is no other evidence to prove the loss or damage to the crop.Nothing about the produce which was not affected or was sold in the market is on record.In our opinion, a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 will serve the interest of justice." 9.It is, therefore, seen that in doing so, the Ld. State Commission did not at all consider how much was the Agricultural area sown by the Complainant with the alleged poor quality seeds, what was the average yield per unit of the area, and what could have been the price if the normal produce had been sold in the market. 10. Ld. Counsel has drawn attention to the averments made in Para 1 of the original complaint (Annexure-R2) from which it transpires that the Petitioner/Complainant claims to have sown the crop of American Cotton (Narma Crop) in 54 killas of land, out of which 10 killas were owned by him personally, and three other plots of land measuring 10 killas plus 21 killas plus 34 killas were taken by him on Theka for the purpose of the same cultivation within the Revenue Estates of Village Ghumiara, Chappianwali and Danewala, all within the Revenue Estate of Malout. Now in their reply filed before the District Forum it was not specifically denied that the Complainant had not sown the Cotton Seeds, and it was merely mentioned that he is not the owner of 54 killas of land, and he was "put to strict proof of it". Separately, the Complainant had also filed his Affidavit in evidence in support of the complaint (Annexure-R2), against which no categorical evidence to rebut the statements of the Complainant on the aforesaid averments appears to have been led. 11.Again, in Para 9 of the original complaint, it was specifically pleaded by the Complainant that the average yield of the Cotton Crop in Tehsil Malout was 7.5 to 8.00 quintals per killa, which was not specifically denied on behalf of the Opposite Parties, and it was again noted in the corresponding Para 9 of the Reply that "The Complainant be put to strict proof of it". 12.Undoubtedly, no documentary evidence to show the sale price of the Cotton crop had been led on behalf of the Complainant in the lower Fora. But, it was the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner/Complainant that the Minimum Support Price (MSP) of the concerned crop in the relevant year is specified in the official notifications issued by the Competent Authority/Government of which Judicial notice can be taken. For this purpose, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner was granted time of 17.11.2023 to file the relevant notification pertaining to the MSP of the concerned crop in the relevant year. Subsequently, a copy of the Order No. 1/20/2007-08/MSP/Cotton/5-45 dated 6.8.2007 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Textiles, Office of the Textile Commissioner, has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner. Perusal of Item No. 13 of the same goes to show that the minimum Support Price per quintal of the relevant Cotton crop (F-414/H-777/J-34 Hybrid (Punjab) was Rs. 1950/- per quintal. Now, presuming that the average yield per killa was at the lowest range claimed by the Petitioner/Complainant i.e. 7.5 quintals, the total yield from 54 killas sown by him would come to 405 quintals. The minimum sale price (MSP) for the same @ Rs. 1950/- would therefore come to Rs. 7,89,750/-. However, the Ld. State Commission had determined that the extent of loss suffered by the Complainant was in the range of 60-70%. So the lowest range of such loss assessment is applied to the MSP for 405 quintals, after which the net loss would therefore come to Rs. 4,73,850/-. 13. In such circumstances, the approach of the Ld. State Commission in awarding a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 2.00 lakhs without going into any minute details pertaining to the claim of the Petitioner from his original pleadings, cannot be regarded as scientific or proper. Consequently, the Revision Petition is allowed after modifying the impugned Order passed by the Ld. State Commission to the extent that the amount of compensation payable to the Petitioner shall be Rs. 4,73,850/- instead of Rs.2.00 lakhs. However, the interest upon its payment awarded @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till payment would appear to be slightly excessive. The same is therefore reduced to 7% p.a. which the Respondents are now directed to pay within 45 days from the date of this Order, failing which any outstanding payments shall attract future interest @ 9% p.a. till the time of final payment. 14.Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.
......................................J SUDIP AHLUWALIA PRESIDING MEMBER