Anupam Dasgupta, Presiding Member—The petitioner in these two revision petitions (M/s United Phosphorus Limited – ‘UPL’)) is a manufacturer of chemicals, including pesticides. Respondent no. 2 in both the petitions, M/s Badopalia Chemicals (‘BC’) is a distributor of pesticides and fertilisers (including those manufactured by UPL), whereas respondent no. 1 in both these petitions is a farmer of Fatehabad District, Haryana. In fact, respondent no. 1 in RP no. 4545 of 2009 (Ranbir Singh) is the son of respondent no. 1 (Prayag Singh) in RP no. 4546 of 2009. Incidentally, both the revision petitions have been filed after a delay of 183 days.

2. Respondent no. 2 in these revision petitions, viz., BC had also filed revision petitions no. 2083 and 2084 of 2009 with Prayag Singh and Ranbir Singh respectively as respondents no. 1 and UCL as respondent no. 2.

3. All these four revision petitions are directed against the order dated 10.03.2009 in appeals no. 908 and 909 of 2002 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh (in short, ‘the State Commission’). Appeal no. 908 of 2002 had been filed by Ranbir Singh whereas appeal no. 909 of 2002 had been file