ORDER

1.         The complainant is a small farmar/cultivator who had sown 6,700 tomato in .54 acres of land. In order to eliminate  weeds, the complainant had purchased one herbicide namely SHAKED from the shop of OP on 17-09-2020.  As per instructions the complainant used the said herbicides and after 3 days of the usage of the said herbicide the tomato crops started to suffer severe damage resulting the complainant to sustain heavy loss to the tune of Rs. 6,70,000/-. The complainant has brought this facts to the Pradhan of Toubul Gram Panchayat, but could not be settled. Hence, the complainant filed this complaint to award compensation and cost of litigations against the OP for deficiency of service.

2.         The OP had contested the complaint by filing their written statement/version wherein it is stated that the complainant is not stating the real facts and there are numerous factors for damaging tomato crops.

3.         From the above pleadings of the parties , the Commissions  has  framed five issues.  

4.         In order to resolve the dispute, we have examined  (i) complaint  supported by affidavit and documents; (ii) written statement/version supported by affidavit. We heard both the Ld Counsel for the complainant and for OPs.  Written arguments were also filed by the parties. 

5.      Regarding issue numbers 1 and 2 , the O.P. admitted that the Complainant has sown 6,700 tomato plants in .54 acres of land belonging to  Taorem Ongbi Rina Devi and Thoudam Mahesh Singh . The O.P. has also admitted that the Complainant purchased one herbicide SHAKED from his shop . Admitted facts need not be proved . Therefore , issue No. 1 and 2 are decided accordingly .

6.         Regarding issue No.3 .

It is evident from a reading of the complaint, the burden of proof lies on the complainant. Moreover, the allege defects of the herbicides SHAKED cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the herbicides from an expert or laboratory.  There are many factors to destroy or severely damage of tomato crops. There is no expert opinion about the damaged of the tomato crops. There is no substantiate to support the tomato crops were damaged due to using or spraying the herbicide SHAKED. Thus, issue No.3 is decided against the Complainant .

7.         Regarding issue No. 4 and 5, in view of the  decision of the issue No. 1 to 3 ,  these issues are  decided against the complainant.

8.         The complaint is dismissed after consideration. No order as to costs.

            Announced.

     Sd/-                                                                                            Sd/-

Member.                                                                                   President.