NARANJAN DAS SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. SAJJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition No. 445 of 2013 has been filed against the judgment dated 10.9.2012 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh ("the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 486 of 2008.

(2.) The facts of the case as per the respondent/complainant are that the respondent was doing agricultural work in his village for the last 40 to 45 years and has full experience thereof. The respondent had sown wheat crop in 4 Killas of his land and had purchased weedicide from petitioner No. 1. It was sprayed on the crop in accordance with the instructions however, after few days of the spray the wheat crop started becoming yellow and ultimately withered away. The respondent moved an application dated 15.1.2007 to the Agricultural Officer and also informed the petitioner. The officials of the Agricultural Department visited his fields on 19.1.2007 and submitted their report. The respondent again approached the petitioner but they refused to pay any compensation. The contention of the respondent was that due to spraying, his entire crop had been lost. He was to get 25 quintal of wheat per Killa and chaff worth Rs. 7,500 and in this manner, he was to get wheat worth Rs. 80,000 and chaff worth Rs. 30,000 and has therefore, suffered a loss of Rs. 1,10,000. The respondent also prayed for compensation for the mental harassment and has filed the present complaint to recover an amount of Rs. 1,80,000 along with Rs. 1,500 as the price of the weedicide.

(3.) The petitioner/opposite party No. 1 admitted that the weedicide was purchased from the petitioner by the respondent but he had not paid the price thereof, when the petitioner went to the house of the respondent to demand the price there was an altercation and the respondent threatened to implicate him in some false case. The contention of the petitioner was that the instructions for use of the spray were mentioned on the carton of the weedicide and also there was pamphlet inside the carton but the respondent might not have sprayed the weedicide in accordance with those instructions. It was denied that the respondent had suffered any damage due to the weedicide. His contention was that the weedicide used was not got tested from any laboratory and rather the petitioners had got it tested and there was no deficiency in the same. They prayed for dismissal of the complaint.