IMPORTANT POINT
District Forum cannot allow complaint only on report of Agriculture Development Officer.

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.

4. The District Forum on consideration of pleadings of the parties as also the evidence, relying upon the report of the Agriculture Development Officer, found the opposite party No.1 guilty of supplying defective pesticides to the complainant and allowed the complaint against opposite party No.1. Complaint against opposite party No.2 was dismissed. Relevant part of the order of District Forum reads thus: -

“Accordingly, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.84,550/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint i.e. 10.12.2013 till realization. The opposite party No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Complaint against opposite party No.2 is hereby dismissed. Orders be complied with within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. File be consigned to the record room.”

5. Opposite party No.1 being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum approached the State Commission in appeal and the State Commission vide impugned order set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint with following observations: -

“12. In the report of the Agriculture Department Ex. C-4, Dr. Sunder Lal, Agriculture Development Officer, who inspected the fields of the complainant and found that loss of the crop was 60 to 70% and one more kapah was damaged to the tune of 70 to 80%. But the report of the Agriculture Development Officer only revealed that there was damage to the crop. These officers had not carried out any test to ascertain, whether 70 to 80% damage of the crop was due to spray of the purchased pesticides or not? OP has also relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in