BAYER CROP SCIENCE LTD Vs. SURJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar dated 4.11.2004 and after that order dated 1.3.2011 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission'), the Bayer Crop Science India Ltd., one of the opposite parties in the complaint has filed the presertt revision petition. The consumer dispute raised by the respondent No.1/complainant was about the quality and defect in the pesticide, namely, Atlantis manufactured by the petitioner herein and sold by their dealer/respondent No. 2 to the complainant. The pesticides was sprayed on the wheat copy in the month of February 2004 which caused damage to the wheat crop adversely affecting the yield of wheat crop. The opposite parties denied any defect in the pesticides and stated that the damage to the crop was not occasioned due to the defect in quality of the pesticides. An officer of the Agricultural of the State of Punjab visited the growing crop of the complainant and found that part of the crop was damaged reducing the yield to about one quintal and 50 kg. per acre. However, he suggested that the sample of the pesticide be sent for chemical examination and report.

(2.) Both the Fora below on a consideration of the evidence and material produced on record found that the damage to the wheat crop and less yield of the wheat was on account of the defect in quality of the pesticides and, therefore, partly allowed the complaint and awarded a compensation of Rs. 45,000.

(3.) We have heard Counsel for the parties and have considered their submissions. Counsel for the petitioner would assail the findings of the Fora below primarily on the ground that no cogent evidence was brought on record to establish that the pesticides of the above brand manufactured by the petitioner was spurious and was defective and could cause damage to the crop as alleged by the complainant. Referring to the report of the Agricultural Officer, he submits that the report is inconclusive and did not establish with certainty that the damage to the wheat crop of the complainant was solely on account of the use of the pesticides purchased by the complainant from respondent No. 2. He also submits that sample of the pesticides of the said batch was sent to certain laboratory but report has not been received so far. We have noted down these submissions only to be rejected because, in our view, the evidence and material brought on record established the factum of damage to the crop due to the use of the above referred pesticides manufactured by the petitioner and sold by respondent No. 2. The findings reached by the Fora below are based on preponderance of probabilities and in our opinion are correct and do not call for any interference.