advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Damage to the crop due pesticides - not proved; Claim by other persons who names not mentioned in the purchased Bill = (2012) 2 SCC 506 – National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr. in which it was held that not only the purchaser of goods, but also beneficiaries who use the goods with approval of the person who purchased goods fall within purview of consumer. We agree with the proposition of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court, but in the case in hand, complainants have submitted in paragraph 1 of the complaint that they have purchased pesticides for a sum of Rs.9,000/- whereas bill dated 12.12.2006 is in the name of only Complainant no. 2. Further, perusal of complaint reveals that nowhere complainants have alleged that Complainant No. 1 and Complainant nos. 3 to 9 used aforesaid pesticides with approval of complainant no.2. In such circumstances, it cannot be inferred that Complainant No. 1 and Complainant Nos. 3 to 9 sprayed purchased pesticides on their crop with the approval of Complainant No. 2 who purchased pesticides from OP No. 2 and 3, and in such circumstances, Complainant No. 1 and Complainant 3 to 9 do not fall within purview of consumer and learned State Commission has not committed any error in holding that except Complainant No. 2, rest of the complainants do not fall within purview of consumer.- Complainants have not placed on record any laboratory report to substantiate that crops were damaged 100% due to application of pesticide. Report of Agriculture Development Officer only reveals that there was 100% damage to the wheat crop. These officers have not carried out any test to ascertain whether 100% damage to the wheat crop was due to application of purchased pesticides or not. They have mentioned damage as told by the complainants meaning thereby without carrying out any test regarding application of pesticides on the wheat crop. They have given report regarding damage to the crop due to application of purchased pesticides. 8. In the light of above discussion, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

published in http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/0013092511533404RP444612.htm
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
                                                NEW DELHI       

REVISION PETITION NO. 4446 OF 2012

(From the order dated 13.07.2012 in Appeal No. 859/2011 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula)


1. Devender Kumar S/o Sh. Khicchu
2. Radha Charan S/o Sh. Puran Lal
3. Mahendar S/o Sh. Heti
4. Devraj S/o Sh. Puran Lal
5. Parkash S/o Sh. Khema
6. Chander S/o Sh. Khajan Singh
7. Nand Kishore S/o Sh. Shiv Charan
8. Shyam S/o Sh. Uttam Singh
9. Rajender S/o Sh. Bhagmal
    All R/o of Village Mohna, Tehsil Ballabgarh,
    District Faridabad                                    …Petitioners/Complainants       
          Versus
1. M/s. Amsons Lab Pvt. Ltd.
    Works situated at
    Garhi ChhajuSamalkha
    Through its Director
2. Ashwani Kumar
    Shop No. 15, Indira Market,
    Old Sabzi Mandi,
    Delhi
3. M/s. Crop Care Biotech
    Through Ashwani Kumar
    Shop No. 15, Indira Market,
    Old Sabzi Mandi, Delhi
4. M/s. Yashika Agro Chem. Pvt. Ltd.
    208, Ambey Tower,
    Azadpur Commercial Complex,
    Delhi – 110 033
    Through its Director                             …Respondents/Opp. Parties (OP)

BEFORE
     HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
     HON’BLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER
For the Petitioners      :    Mr. Sunny Choudhary, Advocate
 For the Respondent  :       Mr. Arun Chandra, Advocate

PRONOUNCED ON  9th September,  2013

 

O R D E R


 PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/Complainants against the order dated 13.07.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 859/2011 – M/s. Amsons Lab Pvt. Ltd. & OrsVs. DevenderKumar & Ors. by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside and complaint was dismissed.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that complainants/petitioners purchased 50 units of wheat weedicide sulfosulfuron 75% WG for a sum of Rs.9,000/- @ Rs.180/- per unit vide bill no. 515 dated 12.12.2006 from OP/Respondent nos. 2 & 3.  This product was manufactured by OP No. 1/Respondent No. 1 and OP No. 4- Respondent No. 4 was marketing agent.  Complainants sprayed pesticides on their wheat crop, but entire crop was damaged.  Complainants approached Agriculture Development Officer, who visited fields of the complainants on 7.2.2007 and found that there was 100% damage to the wheat crop of the complainants. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainants filed complaint before District Forum. OPs-Respondents resisted complaint and submitted that complainants have not filed any expert opinion along with complaint.  It was further submitted that samples taken by the Agricultural Authorities were found to be O.K. and test report issued by Government laboratory found pesticides upto the mark; hence, prayed for dismissal of complaint.  Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP/respondents to pay Rs.4,79,380/- to the complainants along with 9% p.a. interest and further directed to pay Rs.9,000/- as litigation expenses.  Appeal filed by the OP was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

3.      Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

4.      Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that inspite of use of pesticides by all the complainants purchased from OP, learned State Commission has committed error in holding that complainants are not consumers. It was further submitted that learned State Commission has committed error in not placing reliance on report given by Agriculture Development Officer; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside.  On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

5.      Perusal of record clearly reveals that 50 units of pesticides were purchased by Complainant No. 2 – Radha Charan vide bill no. 515 dated 12.12.2006. 
This bill does not contain name of other complainants as purchasers.  
FIR was also lodged only by Radha Charan
Had the pesticide been purchased by all the complainants, all of them must have lodged FIR.  
In such circumstances, learned State Commission has not committed any error in holding that remaining 8 complainants do not fall within purview of consumer.  
Learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on 
(1997) 1 SCC 131 – Cheema Engineering Services VsRajan Singh, (2010) 10 SCC 194 – Chandigarh Housing Board Vs. Avtar Singh and Orsand (2012) 2 SCC 506 – National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anrin which it was held that not only the purchaser of goods, but also beneficiaries who use the goods with approval of the person who purchased goods fall within purview of consumer.  
We agree with the proposition of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court, but in the case in hand, complainants have submitted in paragraph 1 of the complaint that they have purchased pesticides for a sum of Rs.9,000/- whereas bill dated 12.12.2006 is in the name of only Complainant no. 2. 
Further, perusal of complaint reveals that nowhere complainants have alleged that Complainant No. 1 and Complainant nos. 3 to 9 used aforesaid pesticides with approval of complainant no.2.   
In such circumstances, it cannot be inferred that Complainant No. 1 and Complainant Nos. 3 to 9 sprayed purchased pesticides on their crop with the approval of Complainant No. 2 who purchased pesticides from OP No. 2 and 3, and in such circumstances, Complainant No. 1 and Complainant 3 to 9 do not fall within purview of consumer and learned State Commission has not committed any error in holding that except Complainant No. 2, rest of the complainants do not fall within purview of consumer.

6.      Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspection report given by 3 officers clearly reveals that there was 100% damage to the wheat crop of the complainants due to application of purchased pesticides; even then, learned State Commission has committed error in placing reliance on report of Central Insecticides Laboratory NH-IV, Faridabad (Haryana). 
Perusal of record clearly reveals that FIR was lodged by the Complainant No. 2, Radha Charan against the OPs and Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana quashed FIR vide order dated 28.2.2011 and observed that reports from the Regional Pesticides Laboratory and Central Insecticides Laboratory revealed that samples were as per ISI specifications. 
If samples were found as per ISI specifications, the learned State Commission has not committed any error in placing reliance on Central Insecticides Laboratory NH-IV, Faridabad (Haryana) and dismissing complaint.

7.      Complainants have not placed on record any laboratory report to substantiate that crops were damaged 100% due to application of pesticide.  Report of Agriculture Development Officer only reveals that there was 100% damage to the wheat crop.  These officers have not carried out any test to ascertain whether 100% damage to the wheat crop was due to application of purchased pesticides or not. They have mentioned damage as told by the complainants meaning thereby without carrying out any test regarding application of pesticides on the wheat crop.  They have given report regarding damage to the crop due to application of purchased pesticides.

8.      In the light of above discussion, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

9.      Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed with no order as to costs.
………………Sd/-……………
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J)
 PRESIDING MEMBER

..……………Sd/-………………
( DR. B.C. GUPTA )
 MEMBER
k




























No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.