ORDER

Sudip Ahluwalia, Member—This Revision Petition has been filed challenging the impugned Order dated 19.11.2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab in F.A No. 342 of 2018, vide which, the Appeal filed by the Petitioner and the Respondent No.2 was dismissed, and the Order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur which allowed the Complaint was affirmed.

2. The brief facts leading upto the present case are that the Complainant, an agriculturist and resident of Kikkar Khera, Tehsil Abohar, District- Fazilka, Punjab along with his father Raj Pal Singh, owns 3.5 acres of agricultural land over which cultivated rice crop. After weeds began to grow among the crop, the Complainant consulted the Respondent No. 2, who claimed to have expertise in pesticides sale. Based on his recommendation, the Complainant purchased pesticides namely, Targa Super (1litre) and Astrerodid (80 gm) for Rs.1,950/- on 08.08.2016, on the assurance that these products would be effective and was imported from Japan by the Petitioner. The Complainant after following the instructions as provided by Respondent No. 1 and Petitioner, sprayed the pesticides but within days, his rice crop suffered substantial damage. When he approached Respondent No. 2, he was told that they were not liable for the damage. The Complainant thereafter moved an application before the Assistant Plant Security Officer, Abohar. A team of experts inspected the site and issued a report dated 14.09. 2016, stating that the crop damage was estimated at 50-55% due to the pesticide spray.

3. The Complainant alleged that the pesticides were of poor quality, resulting in crop damage and a financial loss of Rs.2 lakh, as well as an additional Rs.1 lakh for mental distress. The Complainant issued a Legal Notice dated 23.09.2016 asking the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 to pay Rs.3 Lakhs as compensation for loss of crops. The Petitioner gave an unsatisfactory reply to the above said notice whereas the Respondent No. 2 failed to give any reply. Aggrieved with the deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2, the Complainant filed his Complaint before the District Forum, Ferozepur.

4. The District Forum vide its Order dated 22.03.2018 allowed the Complaint and directed the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 jointly and severally to pay Rs.78,500/- alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Complaint, till its realization, to the Complainant along with Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses. The Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 then filed their Appeal before the Ld. State Commission, which was dismissed vide the impugned Order dated 19.11.2018, and the Order of the District Forum was affirmed. The relevant extracts of the impugned Order of the State Commission are set out as below -

“6. .... Here in this case, the inference is clear from the report that the drying up of the paddy crop by destruction of the crop and so on is due to use of pesticides only. The contention for appellant is that the report of the above referred public servants cannot be relied upon without laboratory test of the analysis of the sample. The farmers used costly pesticides and they do not keep any remnant as sample, whereas OPs could have applied to the District Forum in this regard for analysis of sample, which has not been done in this case. The Apex Court has held in “National Seeds Corporation Limited Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & another” I (2012) CPJ 1 (SC) that agriculture experts inspected fields and submitted the report about status of crop revealing that crops failed because of defective seeds. Herein, there is no other factor for failure of the crop other than the use of pesticides sold by OP no.1 to complainant. The Apex Court has held that it is naive to blame District Forum for not having called upon the consumer to provide samples and sent them for analysis or test in laboratory. In view of the la