M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO.112 OF 2016 (Arising out of order dated 29.12.2015 passed in Case.No.306/2013 by District Commission, Bhopal)

BASF INDIA LIMITED, IMAZATHAPAR 10% SL TAGPAR HERBICIDE, ADDRESS – PLOT NO.203/1, GIDC ESTATE, PANOLI – 394116, DISTT. BHARUCH, GUJARAT. … APPELLANT.

Versus

1. BABLU MIYAN, R/O VILLAGE GUNGA, POLICE STATION GUNGA, TEHSIL BAIRASIA, DISTT. BHOPAL.

2. KUSHWAHA TRADERS LAMBAKHEDA, THROUGH DIRECTOR / MANAGER / ADMINISTRATOR, OPPOSITE GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, LAMBAKHEDA, BERASIA ROAD, BHOPAL .… RESPONDENTS.

FIRST APPEAL NO.188 OF 2016 (Arising out of order dated 29.12.2015 passed in Case.No.306/2013 by District Commission, Bhopal)

KUSHWAHA TRADERS LAMBAKHEDA, THROUGH DIRECTOR / MANAGER / ADMINISTRATOR, OPPOSITE GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, LAMBAKHEDA, BERASIA ROAD, BHOPAL … APPELLANT.

Versus

1. BABLU MIYAN, R/O VILLAGE GUNGA, POLICE STATION GUNGA, TEHSIL BAIRASIA, DISTT. BHOPAL.

2. BASF INDIA LIMITED, IMAZATHAPAR 10% SL TAGPAR HERBICIDE, ADDRESS – PLOT NO.203/1, GIDC ESTATE, PANOLI – 394116, DISTT. BHARUCH, GUJARAT. .… RESPONDENTS.

BEFORE :

HON’BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV : PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR.SRIKANT PANDEY : MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

None present for the complainant.

None present for opposite party no.1.

Shri Ramesh Kumar Sen, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 –

BASF India Limited.

O R D E R

(Passed on .08.2025)

Per Say Justice Sunita Yadav :

The aforesaid appeals arise out of the same order and therefore they are taken up together. This order will govern the disposal of both the appeals.

2. The opposite party no.2 has filed First Appeal no.112/2016 and the opposite party no.1 has filed First Appeal no.188/2016 for setting aside the impugned order. Facts of the case are taken from First Appeal No.112/2016, unless otherwise stated.

3. The aforesaid appeals are filed challenging the order dated 29.12.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (for short ‘District Commission’) in complaint case no.306/213, by which the complaint filed by the respondent no.1 / complainant was allowed and the opposite parties were directed to pay, jointly or severally, the amount of Rs.4,310/- and Rs.2,000/- to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of the order, failing which interest @ 9% p.a. will be payable on the said amount, till payment. Additionally compensation of Rs.30,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/-

is also awarded.

4. As per the case of the complainant / respondent no.1, he sowed Soyabean crops on his agricultural land in 2012. The complainant purchased herbicide Tagpair after paying Rs.4,790/- from opposite party no.1 which was manufactured by opposite party no.2 and for the purpose of removing weeds sprayed the same on the field. However, even after using the said herbicide it did not prevent the weeds on account of which the complainant suffered loss in his Soyabean cultivation. The complainant filed the aforesaid complaint alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties before the District Commission seeking relief.

5. Appellants / opposite parties by filing their written statement denied the allegations made in the complaint. Appellant / opposite party no.2 – manufacturer submitted that the complainant failed to use the herbicide as per the instructions. There is no evidence that there is any defect in the product. The product is also as per the standard, therefore, complaint be dismissed. Opposite party no.1 has also denied all the allegation as alleged by the complainant.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant / opposite party no.2 argued that the impugned order passed by the District Commission is perverse and against the settled principle of law. It is further argued that there is no scientific evidence that the herbicide was ineffective. The complainant has failed to prove that the product was not up to the standard or having any defect in it. The panchanama filed by the complainant was not prepared