NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 2984 OF 2012
[Against the order dated 06.06.2012 in F.A. No. 157/2010 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula]
Bhupinder Singh
S/o Shri Dariya Singh
R/o Village Hoshiarpura
Tehsil Safidon, District Jind
Haryana … Petitioner
Versus
1. M/s Karta Ram Rameshwar Dass
Through its Proprietor Dayanand HUF
Through its Karta Dayanand
S/o Rameshwar Dass
R/o Old Anaj Mandi, Jind
Haryana
2. Dayanand
S/o Shri Rameshwar Dass
Proprietor Dayanand HUF
Through its Karta Dayanand
S/o Shri Rameshwar Dass
R/o Old Anaj Mandi, Jind
Haryana
3. Dayanand
S/o Shri Rameshwar Dass
Partner M/s Karta Ram Rameshwar Dass
R/o Old Anaj Mandi, Jind
Haryana … Respondents
BEFORE :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER
For the Petitioners : Mr. Gautam Godara Advocate
Pronounced on 5th November, 2012
O R D E R
PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER
1. This revision petition has been filed by the original complainant Bhupinder Singh against the concurrent findings and orders dismissing his complaint firstly by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind (for short the District Forum) in Complaint No. 123 of 2004 on 15th of December, 2009 and subsequently on his appeal by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short the State Commission) in First Appeal No. 157 of 2010 on the 6th of June, 2012.
2. Alleging that the petitioner/complainant had purchased 40 packets of weedicide ‘Leader’ @ Rs.672/- per packet, 20 packets of weedicide ‘Topic’ @ Rs.690/- per packet and 29 packets of ‘Foret’ @ Rs.200/- per packet, thus paying a sum of Rs.46,280/- to M/s Karta Ram Rameshwar Dass of Jind on 16th of January, 2002, and sprayed the weedicide on his agricultural land. Subsequently, he found that the weedicide ‘Leader’ was of substandard quality as a result of which his wheat crops got damaged. His representation to the authorities such as SDO and DDA of Agriculture Department evoked no response and, therefore, he sent some samples to Shri Ram Institute for Industrial Research, Delhi on 5th of May, 2003 for laboratory test. The said institute clearly stated that the packets contained totally fake substance and not any weedicide. Even thereafter the authorities failed to take any action in the matter and he had to report the matter to the police who on the directions of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court registered an FIR in the matter. Even thereafter the police did not take any action and filed a cancellation report. Contending that the petitioner/complainant suffered a crop loss of Rs.5,67,000/- as no wheat crop could grow on his agricultural land, he filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum which was dismissed.
3. Aggrieved thereupon the petitioner/complainant filed appeal before the State Commission which too has been dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant contends that both the fora below have ignored the report of the laboratory test undertaken by the renowned Shri Ram Institute for Industrial Research, which was very material, and have erroneously discarded the report on the ground of sample not being in sealed condition. On the observation of the fora below that the petitioner/complainant absented himself at the time of the inspection of the field by the Deputy Director (Agriculture), learned counsel submits that the petitioner/complainant was not informed about the date and time of the visit.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant and have carefully perused the records of the case. Firstly, we observe that it is a case of concurrent findings and orders of the two fora below and our jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is rather limited, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [II (2010) CPJ 19 (SC)], wherein the Apex Court has held as under :-
“23. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21(b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora” .
6. Besides, it is from the records that the sample for laboratory test was referred to Shri Ram Institute for Industrial Research by the petitioner/complainant himself and, therefore, it cannot be said that this will have the same effect as a reference made by a consumer fora under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Obviously, it was not in a sealed packet and the content thereof which was subjected to the test could not be said with authenticity to be the same weedicide which the complainant had purchased from the respondent/opposite party.
7. Further, absence of the petitioner/complainant at the time of the inspection of his field by the experts from the Agriculture Department and their finding that there was “satisfactory control of phalaris minor” goes against the allegation of the petitioner/complainant. In our view, if the petitioner/ complainant was really aggrieved by the damage to his crop due to usage of substandard weedicide, he would have himself pursued the matter with regard to the visit of agriculture expert (Deputy Director) and ascertained the date and time of his visit and be present on the site. The conduct of the petitioner/complainant overall does not inspire credibility. The fora below have committed no illegality, irregularity much less any jurisdictional error in dismissing the complaint.
8. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
( R. C. JAIN, J. )
PRESIDING MEMBER
Sd/-
(S.K. NAIK)
MEMBER
Mukesh
