account of crop damage, from the petitioners/OPs.

5. The complaint was resisted by the OPs. Grounds taken were that at the time of sale of the herbicide, the seal was intact. Further, this herbicide had been sold to various distributors/dealers and no other complaint from anywhere else had been received. Further, there had been non-compliance of Deputy Director's circular dated 03.01.2002

by the team which had assessed the loss: This had required that one representative of the agency concerned viz. Ops shall be a member of the inspecting team. It had been argued on behalf of the petitioners/OPs that this was not complied with and therefore, the report of the team finding crop loss could not be accepted.

6. The District Forum considered the arguments of the OPs and concluded that the fact that the circular of Deputy Director of Agriculture dated 3.1.2002 was not complied with while constituting the inspection team was a mere inadvertence and did not suggest any malafide intention. In any case, it was an irregularity and on this ground, equity and natural justice could not be denied to the complainant. So reasoning, it allowed the complaint to the extent of Rs.72,850/-, this being the loss on account of 235 quintals of sugarcane in one acre land @ Rs.310/- per quintal, with interest of 9% from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 25.10.2016 till its realization. A cost of Rs.5,000/- was also awarded. In the appeal filed against this order of the District Forum, the reasoning and logic of the District Forum was upheld by the State Commission. Hence, this RP 942/2020.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that to prove deficiency in service/defect in herbicides and the consequential damage to sugarcane crop, it was necessary to have included one member representative of the OPs in the inspection team. As much had been mandated vide a circular of the Deputy Director of Agriculture (supra). The fact that this was not done would make the inspection report liable to the rejected as illegal. He also argued that the inspection report dated 3.8.2016 had found 90% damage to the crop and had further found that upto 70% to 80% was due to the use of herbicides from it's "phytotoxicity effect". Learned counsel argued that it was difficult to take this report seriously as it comprised but a few handwritten lines to state what was found during the inspection.

8. After having heard the learned counsel and perused carefully the record, including the inspection report and the concurrent orders of the District Forum and the State Commission, I am of the considered view that no ground for revision of the State Commission's order is warranted, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

9. It is apt to reproduce the relevant portion of the order of the District Forum at this stage:

"4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5. The OPs have mainly relied Ex.R3 a circular of Deputy Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula dated 03.01.2002 regarding inspection of farmers fields on receipt

2

of complaint regarding sale of poor quality seeds (herbicides) to all Deputy Directors Agriculture to the effect that one representative of the agency concerned shall be a member besides other members and the OPs have demanded that since they were not notified by the Deputy Director (Agriculture, Rohtak) and did not make them a member of the inspection team constituted by him. The complainant cannot be punished as he did everything required under the procedure. The non inclusion of representative of the OP by the Deputy Director Agriculture as per circular Ex.3 is a mere irregularity. The members of the inspection team are all technical, qualified and independent person. The members of the committee gave an inspection report Ex.C7 approving the name of the complainant. If we concur with the OPs for rejecting the claim of the complainant for not adhering to the circular Ex.R3 in law and spirit by the Deputy Director Agriculture while constituting the inspection team, the order of the Deputy Director is a mere inadvertence and not with any malafide intention. If the complainant suffers due to this irregularity and inadvertence on the part of the Deputy Director Agriculture, the same shall be a clog on equity and against all norms of natural justice. We also find support to our contention from case titled Kanta Kantha Rao Vs. Y. Surya Narayana (NCDRC), New Delhi cited in 2017(2)CPJ 549. On the contrary the citation of Hon'ble NCDRC in Kuber Agro Corporationd & Ors. Vs. M/s. Nishant Trading Co cited in 2017(2)CPJ 8 is of no help to the OPs as acts were different in that case. As such the objections of the OPs are negated."

(Ad verbatim per translated record)

10. Indeed, an internal circular of Deputy Director of Agriculture regarding composition of the inspection team is for the smooth functioning of the Department of Agriculture in its subordinate field offices for fulfilling it's role of assisting the farmers, including taking prompt action on any complaint such as the one under consideration in the instant case. To not have included a representative of the OPs was, at worst, an irregularity. It is not the case nor has it been so pleaded that there was any malafide on the part of the agriculture office or the inspection team. The fact of the matter is that there was a crop loss and the complainant farmer did therefore have to suffer this loss and the inspecting team found the loss to be largely due to the use of herbicides. That this report comprised a few hand written lines does not take away it's value: rural areas may not always have the facility of producing well crafted reports on letter heads and it must not be forgotten that these lines were penned by experienced field personnel.

11. It is apposite to also peruse the reasoning of the State Commission in para 13 of it's order:

"13. Similarly, the other contention of learned counsel for appellants that Deputy Director did not comply with the instructions contained in circular/letter dated 03.01.2002 Ex.R-3 is not tenable in the eyes of law because due to non-compliance of any departmental instructions by the Deputy Director Agriculture is not sufficient to allow the farmer/complainant to suffer. More so, non compliance departmental instructions is only an irregularity but not an illegality. The authority titled 'Indian Farmers Fertilizers Vs. Shri Ram Swaroop (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is not relevant because facts and circumstances were different in that case. It was a case of defective seeds and not of defective herbicide medicines. In the

3

case in hand, there is categorical observation of the inspecting team report Ex.C-8 dated 03.08.2016 that 90% loss to the crop was due to defective herbicide. Learned District Forum has rightly placed upon authority of Kanta Kantha Rao Vs. Y. Surya Narayana (NCDRC) New Delhi cited in 2017 (2) CPJ 549. Similarly respondent No.1-complainant could not be burdened for non-compliance of section 13 (1) (c) of the Act because he had left with no sample for getting the same tested or analyzed from an authorized laboratory. The appellants could have availed this opportunity on receiving the notice of the complaint but they did not do so for the reasons best known to them."

(Ad verbatim per translated record)

12. It may be added that business entities viz. dealers, manufacturers of agri-inputs (seeds, herbicides) carry a special responsibility. They are expected to properly inform the farmer and follow up after sale, to ensure that the farmer has understood and is following all the instructions. In the instant case, the dealer ought not to have waited for an invitation to join the inspection team if it was already aware of the complaint through information furnished by the complainant. He should have been proactive rather than reactive. The same observation can also be made for the manufacturers of agri-inputs such as herbicides: their dealers should be properly trained to ensure that they see their job as not merely one of selling but as providing after sale service through regular follow up.

13. Finally, it is also well to note that the revisionary jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269, relevant portion of which is reproduced below:-

"8. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora.

14. In RP 943/2020, the nature of the complaint is identical, the difference lying in two facts viz. area of crop was 3 acre and the claim allowed by the lower fora was Rs. 2,18,550/-.

15. In view of the discussion above, these Revision Petitions No. 942 & 943, both of 2020,

4

are dismissed, after consideration, at the stage of admission. No order as to costs.

......................

ANUP K THAKUR

PRESIDING MEMBER

5