IMPORTANT POINT
District Forum make thorough enquiry into factual aspects of complaint.

C.C. Pant, Member—This appeal is directed against the order dated 6.1.2005 passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar, partly allowing consumer complaint No.180 of 2003 and directing the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 appellants to pay to the complainant Nos. 1 to 6 sum of Rs.83,200, Rs.41,600, Rs.70,720, Rs.41,600, Rs.29,120 and Rs.33,280 respectively along with Rs.3,000 as litigation expenses, within a period of one month from the date of the order. The District Forum has dismissed the consumer complaint against the opposite party No. 1-respondent No.7.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainants had purchased “Zinc Sulphate” fertilizer from Poorvee Rudrapur Kisan Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Village Bagwara, Tehsil Kitcha, District Udham Singh Nagar-opposite party No.1 in different quantities as per their requirement. According to the complainants, deficiency of zinc causes a disease named “Khaira” in the paddy crop. After planting the seedlings of paddy in the month of May,2003, the complainants found that the crop had caught the said disease “Khaira”. So, the complainants sprayed the Zinc Sulphate fertilizer on the crop according to the prescribed standard, but the complainants found that it did not work and the crop’s condition worsened, which ultimately resulted in the total damage to the crop. The complainants say that they had sown “Pant 4” seed of the paddy, which gives a yield of 25 quintal per acre. The Government’s rate of this paddy is Rs.520 per quintal. Accordingly, the complainants have assessed their respective loss due to the damage caused to their crop. They made a complaint to the District Magistrate, who asked the Project Officer (Agriculture) to enquire into the matter. The Project Officer (Agriculture) took the samples of Zinc Sulphate from the balance stock of fertilizer of two Sahkari Samitis and sent it to the State Level Fertilizer Quality Control Laboratory, Rudrapur. As per standard, the zinc contents in Zinc Sulphate should be at least 21%, but on the laboratory test, the content came out much less than the said standard. The Project Officer (Agriculture) lodged an FIR against opposite party No. 3 Managing Direcctor, Crystal Phosphates Ltd. and opposite party No. 4 Sh. Mahendra Singh Malik, Director, Crystal Phosphates Ltd. along with the company’s agents. The complainants had purchased the fertilizer from opposite party No.1-Poorvee Rudrapur Kisan Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd. The fertilizer “Shankh” brand Zinc Sulphate was manufactured by opposite party No. 2 Crystal Phosphates Ltd. So these two opposite parties were also made the formal parties to the consumer complaint. Since the opposite parties had sold a fertilizer, which was of sub-standard quality, the complainants filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar. The District Forum, partly allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 6.1.2005 in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 have filed this appeal.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the fertilizer “Zinc Sulphate” is used for the faster growth of the crop. If Zinc Sulphate is not used as per the prescribed limit, it may affect the growth of the crop, but it cannot damage the crop. In respect of the alleged damage to the crop, the complainants should have obtained the opinion of an agricultural expert. Only an agricultural expert can ascertain the real cause of the damage to the crop and can also assess the extent of the loss. The complaint is not supported with any such report. The District Forum has simply relied on the Patwari’s report, which cannot be taken as an agricultural expert’s report. The Patwari’s report is based on the information collected from some of the villagers.

5. The learned counsel further submitted that the samples of Zinc Sulphate in which the content