P.K.Sasi vs Director H And J Infomark Industrial Estate

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/Complainant against the order dated 19.10.2012 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 525 of 2010 - Sasi P.K. Vs. Director, H & J Infomark & Ors. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner planted 227 rubber plants in 1 acre of land. Complainant purchased 8 Kg. Well Coat @ 55% from OP-3/Respondent-3, which was manufactured by OP-1/Respondent-1 and marketed by OP-2/Respondent-2. Complainant applied Well Coat to the plants, but after a week, all plants dried up and perished. Matter was reported to the OPs and authorities of Rubber Board collected sample from the remaining portion of Well Coat and reported that plants dried up and perished on account of application of the Well Coat which is defective and harmful Well Coat. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint. OPs resisted complaint and submitted that OPs had not given any promise or issued printed plan tips to the complainant regarding the application of Well Coat to the entire trees. OPs further denied supply of injurious or defective pesticides. It was further alleged that, as complainant is an inexperienced and incompetent rubber planter, plants dried and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint against which, appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that even after proving the fact that on account of defective Well Coat, petitioner ''s plants dried, learned District Forum committed error in dismissing complainant and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be admitted.

PERUSAL of record reveals that as per complaint, complainant purchased 8 Kg. Well Coat bottles of 1 Kg. each, whereas he has filed Bill No.757 only for 3 bottles of 1 Kg. each. Complainant has not produced Bill of another 5 Kg. Well Coat for the reasons best known to him. Complainant has also not placed any expert opinion to show that Rubber plants perished due to application of Well Coat though sample was collected by Rubber Board from remaining portion of Well Coat. As per report of PW2, all 217 Rubber Plants were found completely dried and recommended replanting. It was further observed that chemical contamination has to be confirmed pertaining to dried plants. During cross-examination, he admitted that if 10 gms Rubber kot is applied, it will not dry meaning thereby, 1 Kg. Well Coat was to be applied to 100 plants, whereas complainant purchased 8 Kg Well Coat and applied to the plants. In such circumstances, it can very well be presumed that on account of excess application of Well Coat plants dried up. He has further admitted that approx. 12 Kg of Rubber kot has been applied in the plantation of complainant. It appears that only due to excess application of Well Coat, petitioner has not filed Bill of purchase of rest of 5 Kg. Well Coat. He further admitted that he cannot say whether drying of the plantation was not due to application of Rubber Kot, but due to some other thing. He has simply expressed possibility of drying due to application of Well Coat. He is even not aware; whether any other product is added to Well Coat or not, whereas 100 gms. tyroid was purchased only for the purpose of mixing with the Well Coat. He has further admitted that for confirmation of drying up of plantation due to application of Well Coat, chemical analysis is required. Complainant has not placed any laboratory report and in the absence of laboratory report, it cannot be inferred that on account of application of injurious Well Coat Rubber plants dried. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as sample of Well Coat could not be sent to laboratory for test, as whole the quantity purchased was used and in the light of judgment passï¿ 1/2 by Apex Court in I (2012) CPJ 1 (SC) - National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr., laboratory test is not required where whole quantity of purchased article has been used. We agree with the law propounded by Hon ''ble Apex Court, but in the present case, witness of the petitioner has admitted in his cross-examination test, there was sufficient quantity of sample in the tin and complaint reveals that sample was collected by Rubber Board. In such circumstances, it was obligatory on the part of complainant to get sample tested by laboratory to prove that Well Coat purchased from OP-1 and manufactured by OP-3 was injurious.

LEARNED State Commission has not committed any error in upholding order of learned District Forum dismissing complaint. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order, which calls for any interference.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.