RAVINDRA DNYANDEO RAUT vs DEVIDAYAL SALES PVT. LTD.

MR. Ravindra Raut had planted Pomegranate trees in 80 R of survey No. 40/1 of village Shinganapur, District Nagar in the Reason of 1993-94. He wanted to purchase Malithan 50% 1 litre for prevention of disease in the pomegranate trees from Shetkari Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (hereafter called as Sangh Ltd.). Though he had specifically demanded Malithan 50% 1 litre, but the salesman of the Sangh Ltd. stated that Devithean 50% 1 litre was having the same contents as that of Malithan and he was asked to purchase Devithean. On applcation of Devithean spray on the trees there was foliage of the leaves in 163 pomegranate trees. Accordingly, he filed a complaint before the District Forum which found the damage of crop to the tune of Rs. 9,000 and awarded this amount to be paid by the Sangh Ltd. and M/s. Devidayal Sales Pvt. Ltd. was exonerated from the liability.

AGGRIEVED by the order, the complainant as well as Sangh Ltd. filed appeals before the State Commission, which were heard together. The Sangh Ltd. contended that their salesman sold Devithean because there was no stock of Malithan in the shop. The complainant never told the salesman that the insecticide was to be used for pomegranate trees. Instructions given on the package were not followed by the complainant. In support of this contention the affidavit of the salesman has been filed. In the affidavit he has stated that as Malithan was not available complainant demanded Devithean 50% accordingly, on the bill Malithan was scored out and Devithean was written. The State Commission looking into the affidavit of the salesman of the shop and complaint observed that it failed to understand why the appellant should sell that insecticide, which is not suitable for the trees of the complainant. There was a brochure of Devithean on the bag of the complainant. Believing the contentions of the Sangh Ltd. the State Commission allowed their appeal and the appeal filed by the complainant was dismissed. Dissatisfied by the order of the State Commission, the complainant has filed this revision before us.

Heard arguments of the learned Counsel of both the parties and perused the records of the case.

IT is on record that the complainant has addressed the letter to the Gat Development Officer, Taluka Panchayat Samitee, Kopargaon about his purchase of Malithan 50% which was sprayed which resulted in shedding leaves and it was not possible for pomegranate trees to bear pomegranate fruits. Accordingly, he has suffered a loss of Rs. 50-60 thousand. He requested that his orchard may be inspected. Accordingly, the Gat Development Officer submitted a report to Agricultural Development Officer, District Council, Ahmednagar with copies to the complainant and Chairman, Shetkari Co-op Group Ltd. Kopargaon directing him to find solution to the problem faced by the farmer. The Gramsevak of Gram Panchayat Office, Shingnapur conducted Panchnama on 29.10.1993 and found that 80-90% of the leaves are lost and each tree had barely on an average 125 fruits on them. As against the documentary evidence produced by the complainant based on the inspection conducted by the concerned Government officials we find that the respondents had not produced any evidence except the affidavit of the salesman. Affidavit of salesman to be dicarded with reference to the bill at page 24. Accordingly, we allow the revision petition and set aside the order of the State Commission and confirm the order of the District Forum. There shall be no order as to costs. R.P. allowed.