MOHINDER PAL Vs. KISAN PESTICIDES & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, "the State Commission) dated 16.2.2016 in first appeal No.1005/2014.

(2.) Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the petitioner filed a consumer complaint in district Ferozepur alleging that he had sown Narma crop in 3 acres of land and Kapah crop in 1 acre of land in the year 2013. In order to protect the crops from pests, the complainant allegedly purchased pesticides, namely, IMIDA 17.8 one liter quantity and ACEPHATE one kilogram from the respondent/opposite party for Rs.1850/- vide bill No.246. It is the case of the complainant that he prepared the mixture of aforesaid two pesticides as per the instructions and sprayed the said mixture on the crop in his fields. As a result of spraying of the pesticides, the crop got damaged to the extent of 60% to 70% of Narma crop and 70% to 80% of Kapah crop. According to the complainant, due to inferior quality of pesticides supplied by opposite party No.1, complainant suffered loss to the tune of Rs.2 Lakhs. The complainant, thus, approached the Agriculture Development Officer, who visited the spot and on inspection prepared the report indicating that there was a loss of 60% to 70% yield pertaining to the Narma crop and 70% to 80% yield pertaining to the Kapah crop.

(3.) The opposite party on being served with the notice of the complaint filed written statement alleging that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. It is alleged that the name of manufacturer, batch number and expiry date of the pesticides were mentioned in the bill. The opposite party challenged the report of Agriculture Development Officer on the ground that the Agriculture Development Officer conducted the ex-parte investigation without giving any intimation to the opposite party. It is also alleged that the report of the Agriculture Development Officer is non-speaking, wrong and vague as no test was carried out by the Agriculture Development Officer to ascertain the exact reason for the loss. Opposite party No.2 filed a separate written reply.