MOHINDER PAL vs KISAN PESTICIDES & ANR.

This revision is directed against the order of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, "the State Commission) dated 16.2.2016 in first appeal No.1005/2014.

Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the petitioner filed a consumer complaint in district Ferozepur alleging that he had sown Narma crop in 3 acres of land and Kapah crop in 1 acre of land in the year 2013. In order to protect the crops from pests, the complainant allegedly purchased pesticides, namely, IMIDA 17.8 one liter quantity and ACEPHATE one kilogram from the respondent/opposite party for Rs.1850/- vide bill No.246. It is the case of the complainant that he prepared the mixture of aforesaid two pesticides as per the instructions and sprayed the said mixture on the crop in his fields. As a result of spraying of the pesticides, the crop got damaged to the extent of 60% to 70% of Narma crop and 70% to 80% of Kapah crop. According to the complainant, due to inferior quality of pesticides supplied by opposite party No.1, complainant suffered loss to the tune of Rs.2 Lakhs. The complainant, thus, approached the Agriculture Development Officer, who visited the spot and on inspection prepared the report indicating that there was a loss of 60% to 70% yield pertaining to the Narma crop and 70% to 80% yield pertaining to the Kapah crop.

The opposite party on being served with the notice of the complaint filed written statement alleging that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. It is alleged that the name of manufacturer, batch number and expiry date of the pesticides were mentioned in the bill. The opposite party challenged the report of Agriculture Development Officer on the ground that the Agriculture Development Officer conducted the ex-parte investigation without giving any intimation to the opposite party. It is also alleged that the report of the Agriculture Development Officer is non-speaking, wrong and vague as no test was carried out by the Agriculture Development Officer to ascertain the exact reason for the loss. Opposite party No.2 filed a separate written reply.

The District Forum on consideration of pleadings of the parties as also the evidence, relying upon the report of the Agriculture Development Officer, found the opposite party No.1 guilty of supplying defective pesticides to the complainant and allowed the complaint against opposite party No.1. Complaint against opposite party No.2 was dismissed. Relevant part of the order of District Forum reads thus: - " Accordingly, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.84,550/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint i.e. 10.12.2013 till realization. The opposite party No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Complaint against opposite party No.2 is hereby dismissed. Orders be complied with within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. File be consigned to the record room."

Opposite party No.1 being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum approached the State Commission in appeal and the State Commission vide impugned order set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint with following observations: - "12. In the report of the Agriculture Department Ex. C-4, Dr. Sunder Lal, Agriculture Development Officer, who inspected the fields of the complainant and found that loss of the crop was 60 to 70% and one more kapah was damaged to the tune of 70 to 80%. But the report of the Agriculture Development Officer only revealed that there was damage to the crop. These officers had not carried out any test to ascertain, whether 70 to 80% damage of the crop was due to spray of the purchased pesticides or not? OP has also relied upon the Judgment of Hon''ble National Commission in case titled Devender Kumar & Ors. Vs. Amsons Lab Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. CPJ 2014, Part-II, Vol. IV, Page 575 in which it was held that Agriculture Department have not carried out any test to ascertain whether damages to the crop was due to application of purchased pesticides or not? The Revision petition filed by the complainant was dismissed. The same view has been taken in the judgment Jaswinder Singh Vs. Punjab Pesticides Seeds and Ors. Page 618 (NC) CPJ 2014 Part I.

In the present case there is also violation of principal of natural justice also. Before conducting the inspection of the fields of the farmer, no notice was given to OP to join the inspection. Whenever the inspection was conducted, the same was done at the back of the OP without giving them any opportunity to join the inspection. In the report also, it was mentioned that inspection was done only in the presence of Mohinder Pal Singh. When the complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Forum, no application was moved by the complainant to ask the Ops to produce the pesticides of the same batch for sending its sample to appropriate laboratory. Nor such a procedure was adopted by the District Forum as required under Section 13 ((1) (c) of the Act. No expert evidence has been examined by the complainant that damage to the crop/less yield was only due to spray of pesticides purchased from OPs.

The District Forum has allowed the complaint only on the report of the Agriculture Development Officer, Ex. C-4 which does not disclose that less yield of crop was due to spray of pesticides purchased form the OPs and not for any other reason. In the absence of the specific evidence the order so passed by the District Forum is not sustainable that less yield/damage to the crop of the complainant was due to spray of pesticides purchased by the complainant from OPs. Therefore, the order so passed by the District Forum is not legally sustainable and is liable to be set aside.

15 In view of the above discussion, we accept the appeal and impugned order of the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed."

Learned Shri Ferry Sofat, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable because it has been passed in utter disregard of the report of Agriculture Development Officer, who after inspection reported that there was loss of yield of the crop.

In order to appreciate the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be useful to have a look on the inspection report of the Agriculture Development Officer. Translated version of the report is reproduced as under: -

"Inspection report of Narma crops of Sh. Mohinder Pal S/o Sh. Munshi Ram, Village Diwaan Khera.

On 25.09.2013, the farmer had made a representation regarding destroying of Narma crop and today dated 26.09.2013 the 3 acre land of Narma and 1 acre land of Kapah of Mohinder Pal s/o Munshi Ram resident of Diwaan Khera was inspected by Dr. Shishpal Gadara, Agriculture Development Officer, Dr. Sunder

Lal, Agriculture Development Officer in the presence of the farmer. The farmer told that he purchased ACEPHATE one kg., E.C. 17.8 one liter from the Kisan Pesticides, Diwaan Khera, vide bill No.246 dated 17.08.2013 and on dated 18.08.2013 after mixing both the medicines, sprayed them on the fields. The farmer told that these medicines were mixed and sprayed as per the instructions of the shopkeeper.

On dated 26.09.2013, the spot was inspected in the presence of the farmer Mohinder Pal s/o Sh. Munshi Ram, village Diwaan Khera. At the spot it was found that in the Narma crops around 4 to 7 Tinde has been made and rest of the tinde and flowers are spoined and the old tinde has been fallen. And over the other part it is difficult that tinde will grow. Thus, the Narma crop has been destroyed to the extent of 60% to 70% and crops of Kapah has been destroyed to the extent of 70% to 80%.

Sd/- 01/10/2013 Sd/- 01/10/2013

Agriculture Development Officer Agriculture Development Officer

(Distt. Kam) (Khuian Sarwar)

Khuian Sarwar Khuian Sarwar

No.396 dated 3/10/2013

The full report is being presented for further action

Sd/-1/10/13"

On reading of the above report, we find that the Agriculture Development Officer on inspection found that there was loss of yield in the crop and he reported that the Narma crop has been destroyed to the extent of 60% to 70% and the Kapah crop has been destroyed to the extent of 70% to 80%. The Agriculture Development Officer in his report has nowhere stated that the loss of crop was as a result of the use of defective pesticides. No test report of pesticide has been produced on record. Therefore, we do not find any fault with the reasoning of the State Commission that the loss of crop could be due to any reason and not necessarily due to spraying of the pesticides. We do not find any irregularity in the order of the State Commission allowing the appeal, which may call for interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.

Revision petition is accordingly dismissed.