- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Adama Agan Limited And Others Petitioner(S) v. Ramesh And Another (S).
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission — Summary of Order (Anup K. Thakur, Presiding Member)
Factual and Procedural Background
These two revision petitions (Revision Petition No. 942 of 2020 and Revision Petition No. 943 of 2020) challenge the State Commission of Haryana's orders dated 12.02.2020 which had upheld the District Consumer Forum's orders dated 24.05.2018 (in F.A. Nos. 834/2018 and 849/2018 respectively).
Facts specific to Revision Petition No. 942 of 2020: The respondent/complainant sowed sugarcane on one acre in village Baland, Rohtak. He purchased herbicides for Rs. 7,990 (receipt no.11460 dated 20.06.2016) from petitioner no.1 (OP1). After spraying the herbicide the crop suffered severe damage. The complainant informed the OPs; no response was received, and the Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer (SDAO) was informed. An inspection was carried out and a report submitted (inspection report dated 03.08.2016 is referenced). A consumer complaint was filed seeking Rs. 1,60,000 as compensation (complaint filed on 25.10.2016).
The District Forum, after inspection and consideration of the matter, allowed the complaint in part — awarding Rs. 72,850 (representing loss of 235 quintals @ Rs.310 per quintal for one acre) with 9% interest from the date of filing of the complaint (25.10.2016) and costs of Rs. 5,000. The State Commission upheld the District Forum's order on 12.02.2020. Revision Petition No. 942 challenges that confirmation.
Facts specific to Revision Petition No. 943 of 2020: The complaint facts are identical in nature; the area in issue was three acres and the lower fora's award (as described in the order) was Rs. 2,18,550. The State Commission also upheld the District Forum's order in that appeal; the present petition challenges that confirmation.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the non-inclusion of a representative of the opposite parties (OPs) in the official inspection team (contrary to the Deputy Director of Agriculture's circular dated 03.01.2002) renders the inspection report inadmissible or otherwise vitiates the findings such that the District Forum's award must be set aside.
- Whether the inspection report and concurrent findings of the two fora are sufficient to establish deficiency in service/defect in the herbicide and consequential crop damage warranting the compensation awarded by the District Forum.
- Whether there is any jurisdictional error or other ground in law apparent on the face of the record that would justify exercise of revisional powers by the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act to reverse concurrent findings of fact recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners / Opposite Parties (OPs) — Main Arguments
- That a circular of the Deputy Director of Agriculture dated 03.01.2002 required inclusion of one representative of the agency concerned (i.e., the OPs) as a member of the inspection team; since that requirement was not complied with, the inspection report is illegal and liable to be rejected.
- That at the time of sale the seal of the herbicide package was intact and the herbicide had been sold to many distributors/dealers with no other complaints, suggesting against defect or general responsibility.
- That the inspection report (dated 03.08.2016) was brief and comprised only a few handwritten lines (stated as: "difficult to take this report seriously"), and therefore its findings (including a 90% damage finding and a conclusion attributing 70–80% to phytotoxicity from herbicide) should not be relied upon.
- Reliance on precedents (as advanced before the District Forum and State Commission) contending that the facts or legal principles in those authorities were applicable to challenge the findings (specific precedents and how they were relied upon are set out in the record).
Respondent / Complainant — Position as Recorded
- The complainant purchased the herbicide, sprayed it, and the crop — which was doing well — suffered severe damage thereafter.
- The complainant followed the procedure: informed the OPs, and when there was no response, he informed the SDAO which led to inspection and a report attributing substantial damage to the herbicide.
- The complainant sought compensation for the crop loss (Rs. 1,60,000 in RP 942; in RP 943 the facts were similar for three acres and the lower fora awarded Rs. 2,18,550).
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Kanta Kantha Rao Vs. Y. Surya Narayana (NCDRC), New Delhi, 2017 (2) CPJ 549 | Support for the proposition that non-inclusion of a party's representative in an inspection team (in breach of a departmental circular) may be an irregularity and does not automatically disentitle a complainant to relief when the irregularity is inadvertent and there is no malafide. | The District Forum and the State Commission invoked this authority to support the conclusion that the Deputy Director's non-inclusion of an OP representative was a mere irregularity and not a ground to deny relief; the National Commission noted this support when upholding the concurrent findings. |
| Kuber Agro Corporationd & Ors. Vs. M/s. Nishant Trading Co., 2017 (2) CPJ 8 | Referenced by the OPs (as relied upon below) — the citation was used by OPs to argue against the complainant's claim. | The District Forum observed that the Kuber Agro citation was "of no help to the OPs as acts were different in that case" and therefore the citation did not undermine the District Forum's reasoning; the National Commission accepted that distinction as recorded in the lower fora. |
| Indian Farmers Fertilizers Vs. Shri Ram Swaroop (as cited in the State Commission's order) | Authority dealing with defective seeds (a factual matrix different from defective herbicide) — raised by appellants below to challenge the inspection/recovery. | The State Commission held that this authority was not relevant because the facts were different (defective seeds vs. defective herbicide). The National Commission reproduced this reasoning while dismissing the revision petition. |
| Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269 | Principle on the limits of revisional jurisdiction — that revisional powers (of the National Commission) under Section 21(b) of the Act can be exercised only where there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order; concurrent findings of fact without such an error are not to be set aside by revision. | The National Commission relied on the quoted passage from this Supreme Court decision to emphasize that revisionary jurisdiction is limited to apparent jurisdictional errors, and found no such error warranting interference with concurrent findings of the two fora, leading to dismissal of the revision petitions. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The National Commission's analysis proceeded in several identifiable steps, each grounded in the record and the concurrent findings of the lower fora:
- Assessment of the inspection irregularity: The Court acknowledged the Deputy Director of Agriculture's circular (03.01.2002) that recommended inclusion of a representative of the concerned agency in inspection teams. The Court agreed with the District Forum's characterization that the omission in the present case was an inadvertent irregularity, not an act of malafide. The Court observed that there was no pleading or evidence of malafide on the part of the agriculture office or the inspection team.
- Evaluation of the inspection report's substance and reliability: Although the inspection report consisted of a few handwritten lines, the Court held that the brevity of the report did not diminish its probative value. The Court noted that rural inspection reports may be brief but can still be competent evidence when authored by experienced field personnel. The inspecting team had attributed substantial damage (the report is recorded as finding 90% loss and attributing up to 70–80% loss to the herbicide's phytotoxicity).
- Responsibility of dealers/manufacturers: The Court underlined that dealers and manufacturers of agricultural inputs bear a special duty to inform and follow up with farmers; they should be proactive in participating in investigations. The Court observed that the dealer should not have waited for an invitation to join the inspection team if already aware of the complaint.
- Weight of concurrent findings and limits of revision: The Court emphasized the narrow scope of its revisionary jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Act, relying on the Supreme Court authority (Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta). Because the District Forum and the State Commission recorded concurrent findings of fact and applied relevant reasoning (including reliance on Kanta Kantha Rao), the National Commission found no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice on the face of the record to justify interference.
- Rejection of petitioners' challenge to precedents and factual distinctions: The Court accepted the State Commission's reasoning that other authorities relied on by the appellants (such as Indian Farmers Fertilizers) were factually distinguishable and therefore not persuasive to overturn the findings that the herbicide had caused the damage.
In sum: the Court found the inspection irregularity to be insufficient to vitiate the inspection report and concurrent findings, accepted the credibility of the inspection team's conclusion, and declined to exercise revisionary power absent an apparent jurisdictional error.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The National Commission dismissed both Revision Petition No. 942 of 2020 and Revision Petition No. 943 of 2020. (DISMISSED.)
Direct consequences for the parties:
- The District Forum's orders dated 24.05.2018 (which had been upheld by the State Commission on 12.02.2020) remain in force.
- In RP 942 the District Forum had allowed compensation of Rs. 72,850 (loss on account of 235 quintals in one acre @ Rs.310 per quintal) with interest at 9% from 25.10.2016 until realization, and awarded costs of Rs. 5,000. Those reliefs remain effective as the revision was dismissed.
- In RP 943 the lower fora had allowed Rs. 2,18,550 (for three acres as recorded); that award likewise stands.
- The National Commission made no order as to costs in disposing of the revision petitions.
Broader legal implications:
- The decision reiterates that a departmental or internal circular's non-compliance in constituting inspection teams may amount to an irregularity but does not automatically annul an inspection report unless malafide or some jurisdictional error is shown.
- The National Commission underlined the limited scope of its revisional jurisdiction (per Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta), indicating that it will not ordinarily disturb concurrent findings of fact by two fora in the absence of an apparent jurisdictional error.
- The order does not articulate any novel legal principle or create a new precedent beyond the application of established principles to the facts; the Commission explicitly treated the matter as one in which concurrent findings were not demonstrably erroneous on the face of the record.
This summary is confined strictly to the matters and quotations contained in the provided opinion and does not introduce external facts or inferences beyond that text.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 942 OF 2020
(Against the Order dated 12/02/2020 in Appeal No. 834/2018 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. ADAMA AGAN LIMITED & 2 ORS. ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. RAMESH & ANR. ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 943 OF 2020
(Against the Order dated 12/02/2020 in Appeal No. 849/2018 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. ADAMA AGAN LIMITED & 2 ORS. ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. PARVESH & 2 ORS. ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. ANUP K THAKUR,PRESIDING MEMBER For the Petitioner : For the Petitioners : Mr. Satyam Bhatia, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 18 Jan 2021
ORDER
ANUP K. THAKUR
Under challenge in Revision Petition No. 942 of 2020 is the impugned order dated
12.02.2020 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula,(State Commission, hereafter), in F.A. No.834/2018.Vide this order, the State Commission had upheld the order dated 24.5.2018 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (District Forum, hereafter). Under challenge in Revision Petition No. 943 of 2020 is the impugned order dated 12.02.2020 of the State Commission in F.A. No.849/2018 vide which it had upheld the order dated 24.5.2018 of the District Forum.
2. It is proposed to dispose off both these Revision Petitions by this common order.
3. Brief facts of the case in RP 942/2020 are that the respondent/complainant had sown sugarcane in one acre of land in village Baland, Tehsil and District Rohtak. He had purchased herbicides worth Rs.7,990/- vide receipt no.11460 dated 20.06.2016 from the petitioner no.1/OP1. It so happened that the crop which was otherwise doing well, as per the complaint, after spraying of herbicides, suffered severe damage. Upon informing the Ops, complainant received no response. The SDAO (sub divisional agriculture officer/office) was informed. Inspection of the affected crop was carried out and a report submitted.
4. A consumer complaint was then filed seeking compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- on
1.
1
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
Alert