Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum.

Briefly stated the facts are that the complainant/respondent purchased pesticides from the petitioner to spray in his field.  On spraying of the pesticides in the field, the sugar crop was destroyed.  Respondent, thereafter, filed the complaint before the District Forum.  Allegation made in the complaint was that the petitioner had sold the

-2-

pesticides after the expiry date.  Petitioner entered appearance and denied the allegations made by the respondent.  Preliminary objection was taken that the complaint was liable to be dismissed due to misjoinder of parties; that the manufacturer who was a necessary party was not impleaded.  It also took the stand that the complainant raised disputed questions of fact which could not be decided by the consumer foras; that the respondent be directed to approach the civil court.  Other allegations made by the respondent in the complaint were denied.

District Forum after taking into consideration the pleadings as well as the evidence placed before it, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay to the respondent Rs.25,600/- and                  Rs.1260/- being the purchase price of the pesticides totaling to Rs.26,860-/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum and costs of Rs.2,000/-.

Aggrieved against the order passed by the District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission has dismissed the appeal holding that it was not a case of sub-standard pesticides and, therefore, it was not necessary to

-3-

implead the manufacturer of the pesticides; that it was a case of deficiency in service for selling of the goods after the date of expiry amounting to unfair trade practice.  The State Commission recorded another finding that the petitioner had admitted the sale of pesticides but took the stand that this was not the same pesticides which had been sold to the respondent.  The State Commission rejected this submission outright.

Counsel for the petitioner has been heard. 

There is overwhelming evidence on record to show that the respondent had purchased the pesticides from the petitioner.  The pesticides were sold after the expiry date.  The respondent had produced the bill as well as the container bag of the pesticides. 

We agree with the view taken by the State Commission that the petitioner was guilty of selling the pesticides after the expiry date.  The petitioner was guilty of adopting unfair trade practice.  Otherwise also, the finding recorded is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

-4-

Under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in Revisional jurisdiction this Commission can interfere only if the State Commission exercises jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.  We do not find any material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction on either of accounts mentioned in Section 21 of the Act.  Dismissed.  No costs.

Since we are dismissing the revision petition, the District Forum is directed to release the amount deposited by the petitioner under the order of this Commission to the respondent along with the interest accrued thereon.