Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date has been filed by complainant Mohan Singh son of Narain Singh against opposite parties i.e. The Hothian Co-operative Multipurpose Service Society Limited, , Hothian, District Kapurthala through its Secretary Sukhdev Singh. and also Markfed Agro Chemicals, 7-8 B, Industrial Estate, S.A. S. Nagar, Mohali claiming damages against them on account of spurious herbicides resulting into damage of his wheat crop.. 2. Opposite parties controverted the allegations of complainant and resisted his claim. Since the quality of herbicides namely mark Salfo was questioned by the complainant and made a request on 4/6/08 for chemical analysis of said herbicides namely mark Salfo and produced one box containing on sealed bottle and one sachet for its chemical analysis by recognized laboratory . This Forum considered genuineness of the request and for proper adjudication of the case sent the sample containing one sealed bottle and one sachet in a sealed box to M/s International Testing Centre, 86, Industrial Area, Phase-1 Panchkula a recognized Laboratory under the list of Central Govt. for its analysis and report. The said testing Centre sent the report after examination of the sample of herbicides mark Salfo containing one sealed bottle and one sachet on 23/6/08, after due examination of components of sealed sample SalfoSulfur on 75% WG and test report is as per manufacturer's declaration and its declared value was 75%. Being dis-satisfied with the report of International Testing Centre questioned its finding under Section 13(1) (f) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 complainant submitted his objections in writing in regard to the report made by International Testing Centre. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties with regard to validity and correctness of the report dated 23/6/08 sent by International Testing Centre, Industrial Area, Panchkula after going through the objections to the test report filed by the complainant and also reply filed by the opposite party. 4. The main plank of argument of learned counsel for the complainant is that herbicide was in two different packs one in the form of granules and other in the form of liquid.. The laboratory has only tested the granules and has not tested the liquid and mixture of granules and liquid so as to ascertain as to whether after mixture of liquid and granules, any mixture harmful to the crops is made. It is further pleaded that Laboratory had merely shown that the granule pack contains75.25% of SalfoSulfuron and has not disclosed what was contents of remaining 24.75% material nor it has disclosed that said sample is harmful to the crop or not . On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties contended that objections are not maintainable in the present form. He has defended test report dated 23/6/2008 of International Testing Centre as correct, legal and valid . It is denied that said Laboratory has tested only granules and not liquid. It is further submitted that in part-C of the report, specific requirement of Salfosulfuron contents has been mentioned. After testing the sample result has been shown to be 75%. There was no need of showing the remaining 24.74% material because the sample has been tested as a whole and it covers the required percentage as mentioned in the specific requirement column. It is further pleaded that in the remark column of the report it has been clearly mentioned that sample of Salfosulforn 75% wg conforms to manufacturer declaration with respect to the abovesaid tests which clearly indicate that herbicide was not harmful to the crop . 5.. We have considered rival contentions of counsel for the parties and also have gone through test report dated 23/6/08 and objections filed by complainant and reply thereof filed by opposite parties. We do not find any factual or legal infirmity in the laboratory test report dated 23/6/08 because Technical experts of Laboratory tested sealed samples containing herbicides and gave affirmative finding after due analysis that sample conforms to Manufacturer 's declaration with respect to the tests which clearly establishes that herbicides namely Mark Salfosulforn purchased by the complainant from opposite parties No1 and 2 and manufactured by opposite party No.3 was not of substandard and spurious quality. Therefore, the same cannot be discarded nor alleged damage to the wheat crops of the complainant can be attributed to the herbicides namely mark salfosulforn. Since laboratory test report of the International Testing Centre has sealed the fate of the case of the complainant and ruled out spurious nature of herbicides, so we do not find merit in the complaint nor justify production of further evidence by the parties. In the ultimate analysis of aforesaid discussion, complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. Let certified copies of judgment/order rendered be supplied/despatched to the parties without any unnecessary delay and thereafter file be consigned to record room. Announced : ( Shashi Narang ) ( Gulshan Prashar ) ( A.K. Sharma ) 23.9.2008 Member Member President.
