By this common order, we shall dispose of both these revision petitions as the facts and law involved in them are the same.

Facts are being taken from Revision Petition No.938/2010. 

Petitioner, which was the opposite party No.2 before the District Forum, is the manufacturer of pesticides which were supplied to the

-2-

respondent/complainant for spraying on the crop.  The complainant purchased the pesticides for spraying American cotton crop which had been sown by him in six acres.  However, after spray the cotton balls fell down and the crop could not be saved.  Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum with the averment that the pesticides supplied by the petitioner were of sub standard quality and, therefore, he was entitled to a compensation for mental tension and costs of litigation.

District Forum after taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, allowed the complaint against the petitioner and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.40,000/- towards loss of crop and Rs.10,000/- as compensation.  Costs were assessed at Rs.5,000/-.

Petitioner, thereafter, filed an appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

The pesticides supplied to the complainant/respondent were sent to Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad.  The said laboratory after inspection reported that the pesticides had been

-3-

misbranded and were not as per the ISI specification.  The District Forum had also appointed a Local Commission who after inspection the crops, reported that the crops had been completely destroyed.  The petitioner did not send the samples for testing.  The only submission raised before the State Commission was that no reliance could be placed upon the report of the laboratory as the samples produced in the District Forum for test were in open condition.  The complainant may not have saved any pesticides for being sent to the laboratory.  It was for the petitioner, if it was not satisfied with the sample given, to give the pesticides of the same batch which was available with it for testing from the Central Laboratory which it did not do.  The State Commission had drawn an adverse inference against the petitioner which in our opinion, is rightly.  We find no merit in these revision petitions.  Dismissed.