Herbicide Application, Not Product Defect, Caused Orchard Damage: J&K State Consumer Commission Sets Aside ₹1 Lakh Compensation
The Jammu and Kashmir State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Srinagar, comprising President (Officiating) Nighat Sultana and Member Maheep Gupta, has set aside an order directing a pesticide dealer to pay ₹1 lakh compensation to an orchard owner whose fruit trees were damaged following the application of a weedicide. The Commission held that the damage resulted from the...
The Jammu and Kashmir State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Srinagar, comprising President (Officiating) Nighat Sultana and Member Maheep Gupta, has set aside an order directing a pesticide dealer to pay ₹1 lakh compensation to an orchard owner whose fruit trees were damaged following the application of a weedicide. The Commission held that the damage resulted from the faulty method of applying the herbicide and not from any defect in the product itself.
Facts
The complainant, Abdul Ahad, owns a registered orchard in Baramulla district. During the 2018 crop season, he approached trader Manzoor Ahmad Guru, proprietor of Mohsin Traders, Sopore, to address the heavy growth of phakka grass (weed) in his orchard.
Ahad alleged that the trader recommended 'Gromozone 500 mg', a weedicide manufactured by Syngenta, assuring him that it was safe for use in the prevailing high-temperature conditions and would not damage the main crop or soil.
Relying on the assurance, the complainant purchased the chemical and sprayed it across his orchard using a paddle spray machine. However, the following morning, he noticed visible damage to the leaves and fruits of the main crop.
Despite subsequently applying remedial sprays on the advice of horticulture officials, the damage could not be contained.
Following the complainant's request, the Chief Horticulture Officer, Baramulla, referred the matter to an expert team from Agriculture University, Wagoora, for inspection. The team, in its report dated August 16, 2018, assessed the crop damage at 25–30%.
It observed that the herbicide had been applied during the active growth phase without necessary precautions and that spray drift had carried the chemical to the fruit trees, causing necrosis of the foliage and damage to the fruits. The report attributed the damage to the faulty method of application.
The District Consumer Commission, Baramulla, partially allowed the complaint and directed the dealer to pay ₹1 lakh as compensation, along with 8% interest from the date of the order. Aggrieved by this decision, the dealer approached the State Commission.
Contentions of the Parties
The dealer contended that he was merely a trader and could not be held liable when the damage was not attributable to any defect in the product. He denied having advised the complainant to purchase the weedicide and maintained that the complainant had independently requested the product.
Relying on the Agriculture University inspection report, the dealer argued that the crop damage resulted from the faulty application method rather than any defect in the weedicide. He also challenged the District Commission's reliance on the testimony of Abdul Hamid Khan, the then Horticulture Development Officer, Sopore.
Commission's Observations
The State Commission considered whether the crop damage resulted from faulty application of the weedicide or a defect in the product, and whether the District Commission had erred in relying on the testimony of the horticulture officer.
It observed that the Agriculture University inspection report, obtained at the complainant's own request, attributed the 20–30% crop damage to the faulty method of herbicide application. The complainant had himself placed the report on record and never challenged its findings. The Commission held that in the absence of any defect in the weedicide, the allegation that the dealer had persuaded him to purchase and use the product became irrelevant.
Regarding the testimony of Abdul Hamid Khan, the Commission noted that the original complaint did not mention any inspection conducted by him or any advice to use a grass cutter instead of weedicide. It also pointed out that he had not submitted an inspection report to the Chief Horticulture Officer and that his authority to conduct the inspection was unclear.
The Commission considered his testimony an afterthought intended to undermine the Agriculture University's inspection report and held that the District Commission had erred in relying on it.
Decision
Finding merit in the dealer's appeal, the State Commission allowed it, set aside the District Commission's order dated September 6, 2024, and dismissed the consumer complaint. Any interim relief or stay granted in the matter was also rescinded.