KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL 

     COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

                                               APPEAL  NO:243/2007

                              JUDGMENT DATED:12..04..2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                :  PRESIDENT

M/s Agro Sales Corporation,

Pitchu Iyer Junction,                                                         : APPELLANT

Alappuzha R/by its Managing Partner-

Mr.P.J.Scaria.

(By Adv: Sri.Varghese Mammen)

            Vs.

Mr.Vidya Chandra Bose,

Ezhuprayil,                                                                           : RESPONDENT

Kanippadam.P.O, Alappuzha.

                                                JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

The appellant is the opposite party/dealer in OP:A-15/2005 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha.  The appellant is under orders to pay Rs.4724/- with interest at 9% from 19/1/2005 and compensation of Rs.1000/- and cost of Rs.450/-.

 The case of the complainant is that he used the herbicide purchased from the appellant in his 6 acres of paddy field and it was totally ineffective in destroying the herbs.  He paid Rs.2685/- for the purpose and spent Rs.600/- to spray the same.  When the matter was reported to the opposite party he suggested 2 more herbicides for which he had to pay Rs.500/- and Rs.1450/- respectively and spent Rs.600/- for spraying.  Subsequently for removing herbs with the help of labourers he had to spend Rs.2808/-.

The contention of the opposite parties/appellants was that the herbicide was not used as per the directions in the instructions supplied. It is also contended that the complaint is bad for non-jointer of necessary parties ie the manufacturer.

 The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 to PW3, RW1, Exts.A1 series and B1 series.

It is the main contention of the appellant/opposite parties that the complaint is bad for non jointer of necessary parties ie the manufacturer.  We find that the opposite party ought to have pressed for an order on this ground as a preliminary issue rather than raising it in the appeal.  We find after the trial is over it would not be feasible to further implead the manufacturer and remand the matter.  We cannot entertain the above contention in the appeal.

PW1 the complainant, PW2 another person who used the same herbicide and faced with the same consequences and PW3 the labourer who sprayed the herbicide were examined and they have testified in support of the case set up.

The contention of the appellant that expert evidence ought to have been adduced cannot be countenanced in view of the limited quantum of the amount involved.  We find no reason to disbelieve the version of PW1 and the other witnesses.  We find that there is no illegality in the order of the Forum.  In the result the appeal is dismissed.

Office is directed to forward the LCR to the Forum.

JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

VL.