Crop Damage Due To Adverse Reaction By Pesticide, Haryana State Commission Holds ADAMA India, Its Seller Liable

Brief Facts:

The Complainant purchased pesticide from Haridas Khad Beej Bhandar (“Seller”) on June 30, 2016, for growing sugar cane and cotton. However, instead of solving the problem and promoting growth, the pesticides severely damaged the sugar cane crop. The Complainant reported the issue to the Seller and ADAMA India (“Manufacturer”) and the Deputy Director of Agriculture for the Rohtak area. An investigation conducted by the Deputy Director's office revealed a crop loss of 70 to 80%. The Complainant requested the Manufacturer and the Seller to compensate for the loss caused by the defective pesticides. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak (“District Commission”)

The Seller and the Manufacturer claimed the complaint was false, frivolous, lacked jurisdiction, and suffered from non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties. They denied that the Complainant purchased pesticide from the Seller and used it in his field. They asserted that the pesticide 'Tamar', was sold with its seal intact and was manufactured by a reputable company with strict quality controls. They argued that no other complaints had been received about this product batch from other users in Haryana. Additionally, they contended that they were not notified by the Deputy Director of Agriculture and had not been asked to join the investigation, thus there was no deficiency in service on their part.

The District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Manufacturer and the Seller to pay Rs. 72,850/- to the Complainant along with 9% interest. They were also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs. Dissatisfied by the decision, the Manufacturer filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (“State Commission”).

Observations of the Commission:

The State Commission observed that it was undisputed that the Complainant purchased pesticides from the Seller for Rs. 2060/- on June 30, 2016. It was also acknowledged that the Seller was an authorized dealer of the Manufacturer. The State Commission noted that the same batch of pesticides mentioned in the complaint had been supplied across different parts of Haryana. Furthermore, it was confirmed that the Complainant used the pesticides in his field, following the shopkeeper's instructions.

The inspection, conducted after notifying the Manufacturer's representative, revealed that the Complainant suffered a 70-80% loss to his sugarcane crops in one acre due to the alleged pesticide's phytotoxicity effect. This finding was supported by expert analysis, which confirmed the significant crop damage caused by the weedicide. Therefore, the State Commission upheld the District Commission's decision and dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: ADAMA India Pvt. Vs Jitender and Anr.

Case No.: First Appeal No. 1267 of 2018

Advocate for the Appellant: Shri Rohit Goswami

Advocate for the Respondent: Shri Sandeep Bhardwaj (for Jitender)

Date of Pronouncement: 24.07.2024