BAYER CROP SCIENCE LTD Vs. BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS, with an object to augment crop, purchased pesticides from petitioner no. 2 and sprayed the same on cotton crop in their fields. It was only after 7/8 days of spraying of pesticides that crop began damaging, leaf burnt and flowers fell down from the plants. Suspecting pesticides to be spurious, respondents approached Agriculture Department and got the cotton crop in their fields inspected by Sub-Divisional Agriculture Officer, Dabwali, who submitted a report that pesticides in question had damaged crop sown by respondents to the extent of 70%. A consumer complaint was filed when both parties led evidence during pendency of proceedings and District Forum having accepted complaint directed petitioners to pay sum of Rs.90,000/- as crop loss as also Rs.10,000/- as compensation along with cost of proceedings. The claim of respondents was sought to be defeated on premises that should there be defect in quality of pesticides, respondents had not taken recourse to provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and for want of laboratory test, pesticides in question cannot be said to be spurious. The State Commission has rightly negated contentions raised on behalf of petitioners holding that if all pesticides were used by respondents leaving no sample for test, their claim cannot be defeated on this count alone. Added to this, an officer of the Agriculture Department who inspected fields of respondents had submitted a report that crop had suffered damages to the extent of 70% due to spurious pesticides sprayed on the cotton crop. Both the fora below have returned a concurrent finding about deficiency on the part of petitioners calling upon them to pay compensation to respondents, which cannot be disturbed while exercising revisional jurisdiction for want of material irregularity or jurisdictional error. We accordingly while affirming finding of State Commission dismiss revision petition. However, there will be no order as to costs.