This revision petition under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against order dated 4.12.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Panchkula in F.A. No.1201/2012.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has upheld the order dated 2.8.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat in Complaint No.654/2011, whereby the petitioner company has been directed to pay to the complainant a sum of `2 lakh on account of loss suffered by him due to supply of non-standard, defective and inferior quality of herbicide marketed as “RANGO 400”. 

          Assailing the orders passed by both the forums below, it is vehemently submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the report of the District Horticulture Department, relied upon in the impugned order was vitiated as the fields were allegedly inspected in the absence of any representation of the petitioner company. It is urged that had the representative of the company been present at the time of inspection, he would have assisted the officials of said department in coming to the right conclusion as to whether or not the loss of ‘Ghiya’ crop (Bottle Gourd) was on account of the use of the said herbicide, more so, when damage to the crop can be for various reasons like poor quality of seed, inadequate rain fall etc. Learned counsel also contends that as per the instructions on the label, the said herbicide was recommended only for control of grassy weed in ‘soyabean crop’.

          We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with Ld. counsel for the petitioner.  A perusal of the impugned order reveals that before inspection of the complainant’s fields on 30.9.2011, a notice was issued to the petitioner company but they did not respond to the said notice.  Furthermore, no material has been brought on record to doubt the veracity of the report submitted by the District Horticulture Officer, a government functionary, after inspecting the fields of the complainant as also by testing the same herbicide on the crop of other Ghiya growers.  Moreover, as per the pamphlets distributed by the petitioner company available on record, the use of the said herbicide was recommended not only for controlling grassy weeds in soyabean crop but on all vegetables in addition to soyabean crop.

          We do not find any illegality or material irregularity in the concurrent findings recorded by both the foras below, warranting our interference in revisionary jurisdiction.  This revision petition is bereft of any merit and is dismissed accordingly, with no order as to costs.