GUJARAT INSECTICIDES LTD Vs. RAM NIWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions have been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 1.08.2012, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in FA Nos. 2680 2685/2007, M/s. Gujarat Insecticides Ltd. versus different respondents, vide which, while dismissing the appeals, the order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind in consumer complaint no. 236/2001 dated 10.07.2007, allowing the complaint, was upheld. This single order shall dispose of all the revision petitions and a copy of the same be placed on each file.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that all the complainants are permanent residents of Village Amargarh, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind and are agriculturists by profession. The facts as taken from RP No. 4128/2005 are that the complainant purchased 5 Ltr. (Gilphos 20 E.C .) Chlorpyriphos Pesticide from OP No. 1, Laxmi Beej Bhandar, who are the sale agents of the petitioners, Gujarat Insecticides Ltd., the manufacturers of the said pesticide. It has been alleged that the said pesticide was sprayed on the cotton crop by the complainant and as per their version, the crop was completely damaged after treatment with the said pesticide. The complainant made a complaint to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Narwana, upon which the SDO, Agriculture Narwana inspected the crops of the complainants and reported about the damage due to the said pesticide. The SDO, Agriculture, Narwana also sent sample of the pesticide for chemical analysis. The complainants filed complaints before the District Forum and as per the orders passed by the said Forum, the complaints were accepted and the respondents were asked to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- jointly and severally to the complainants for damages, alongwith a sum of Rs.1,000/- as cost of proceedings. Appeals were filed against the order of the District Forum before the State Commission. The State Commission vide impugned order dismissed the said appeals. It is against these orders of the State Commission that the present revision petitions have been made.

(3.) At the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad had tested the samples of the said pesticide and found that they were conforming to the relevant I.S. specifications. However, the analysis made by Quality Control Laboratory of Insecticides, Sirsa, Haryana, the samples had been stated to be 'misbranded'. The learned counsel has drawn our attention to the copies of these reports on record, saying that as per report dated 12.12.2001 given by the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad on a reference made by Judicial Magistrate-Ist class, Narawana, the said Laboratory had stated that the sample was conforming to I.S. specifications. In another report dated 12.12.2001 made by the same Laboratory on reference from Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, Harayana, similar findings had been recorded. In report made by the same Laboratory and sent to Sub Divisional Agricultural Officer, Narwana, Harayana vide letter dated 5.10.2001, it had been stated that the sample was found non-phytotoxic to the cotton crop. On the other hand, the Sub-Divisional Agricultural Officer, Narwana has written in his report dated 24.08.2001 that there were signs of malformation on three and a half acre crop of farmer, after spraying Gilphos 20 E.C.. The plants were affected to the extent of 50% to 55%. It has also been mentioned in this report that the samples of these insecticides had been sent to C.I.L. Faridabad, Sirsa. There is a report of Quality Control Laboratory of State Agricultural Department, Haryana which has declared the samples as 'misbranded', after carrying out chemical analysis of the same. Learned counsel invited our attention to section 3(k) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, in which the definition of 'misbranded' had been given. Learned counsel argued that the sample in question does not qualify to be called 'misbranded' in accordance with the provisions contained in section 3(K). Moreover, if it is a 'misbranded' insecticide, it is bound to be 'phytotoxic'. Learned counsel has also drawn our attention to some interrogatories sent to the Agricultural Development Officer, in reply to which he has admitted that malformation cannot be possible because the sample was found nontoxic to the crop. Learned counsel further argued that the same product was sold in Hisar District also. There were some complaints in that District, but the same were filed. He stated that the State Commission had ignored the evidence brought on record while pronouncing their order. The learned counsel also invited our attention to the document 'Package of Practices for the Crops of Punjab (Kharif) 1999' issued by the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, saying that cotton was highly sensitive to 2, 4 D weedicide. Due to the volatile nature of 2, 4 D weedicide, its vapours are carried by wind over long distances and these may cause injury to the cotton crop. It is necessary, therefore, that the spraying equipment as well as tubs, buckets, etc. should be washed with 0.5% washing soda solution; otherwise, there were chances of contamination with 2, 4 D.