Balkar Singh vs BHAGWATI BEEJ BHANDAR

- FIRST Appeal Nos. 165 and 166 of 1994 are directed against the virtually identical orders of the District Forum, Kaithal dismissing both the complaints preferred against the same respondent. Learned Counsel for the appellant agreed that the issues of fact and law are common and this order will govern both of them.

THE representative matrix of facts may be noticed from First Appeal No. 165 of 1994, Balkar Singh v. M/s. Bhagwati Beej Bhandar and Another it was alleged in the complaint that on the 17th of June, 1992 the appellant had purchased 60 litres of insecticide namely Anilofosh/ Alphajin for Rs. 8550/- from respondent No. 1 who is a dealer of the manufacturer respondent No. 2. It was alleged that the said insecticide was defective and after it had been sprayed on 60 acres of paddy crop owned by the appellant''s joint family, it failed to give the desired results. THE allegation was that thus the complainant-appellant suffered a loss of Rs. 1500/- per acre in crop production. It was further alleged that this insecticide was got tested through the Deputy Director Agriculture Kaithal and it was found to be sub-standard. A compensation of Rs. 90,000/- was claimed. The respondents in resolutely defending the complaint took up the plea that the goods were of the prescribed standard and placed firm reliance on the report dated the 18th of July, 1992 of the Karnal Laboratory and also on two reports dated 13th of May, 1992 and 12th of December, 1992 of a Delhi Laboratory.

The parties produced affidavits in support of their respective cases and primal reliance was placed on the laboratory reports. The District Forum found that the sheet-anchor of the appellant''s report rendered by the Senior Analyst, State Laboratory, Karnal itself showed that there is a permissible limit of variation of 5% on the either side. In the instant case the variation, was within the permissible limit and therefore, even the said report did not establish that this insecticide was defective or sub-standard. This apart it found that the test reports relied upon by the respondents equally belied the respondent''s stand that the insecticide was either defective or sub-standard. It was further held that the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act were not complied with nor was there any conclusive proof about the area under the crop and the application of the insectiside thereto. Inevitably the complaint was rejected.

MR. R.S. Tacoria, the learned Counsel for the appellant was hard-put to raise any serious challenge against the orders under appeal. It was sought to be argued that the District Forum should have taken a view more favourable to the respondent. We are unable to find any merit in the aforesaid submission. No serious challenge could be raised to the observation of the District Forum that even the sheet-anchor of the appellant namely the report of the Senior Analyst, Karnal did not establish that the goods supplied were either defective or sub-standard. Once that is so the matter was concluded against the appellant by the test reports adduced on the record by the respondents, which buttresses their case substantially. Equally it is common ground that the appellant failed to submit any sample for analysis by an appropriate Laboratory before the District Forum. In this situation the observation in 1993 C.P.C.530, Jasdev Singh v. The Deputy Director, Agriculture, Ambala & Another would be attracted and go squarely against the appellant''s case.

IN a. judgment of affirmance it is unnecessary to traverse the same ground again. It suffices to mention that we are in full agreement with the reasoning and the conclusion of the District Forum. The orders under appeal are consequently affirmed. Both the appeals being without merit are hereby dismissed, without any order as to costs. Appeals dismissed.