1.      The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) against impugned order dated 23.01.2012, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula, (‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 1913/2010. In this appeal, the Petitioner/Opposite Party's appeal was dismissed and reduced the compensation from Rs.1,00,000 to Rs. 90,000, thereby affirming the Order dated 30.11.2010, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (“District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No. 473 of 2009 wherein the Petitioner/OPs have been held deficient in service for supplying inferior quality of pesticides.

2.      There was a delay of 74 days in filing the present Revision Petition. For the reasons stated in the Application No. IA/2/2012 seeking condonation of delay, the delay was condoned vide Order dated 30.01.2014. Furthermore, vide order dated 14.12.2017, the Respondent No. 2 i.e. Panghal Khad Beej Bhandar was deleted from the array of parties.

3.      For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

4.      The facts of the case in brief are that the Complainant, an agriculturist, planted paddy crop on approximately 3½ acres of his agricultural land in late June 2009. Despite a promising crop, the fields had an unwanted plant issue. To address this, the Complainant purchased two bottles of 250 ml Whip Super from Respondent No. 2 on receipt/bill no. 421 dated 25.07.2009, as advised, to be sprayed over the 3½ acres of paddy fields. Following the instructions in Respondent No. 2's pamphlet and taking necessary precautions, the complainant sprayed the mentioned pesticide. However, within 2 to 3 days of post-spraying, to the complainant's astonishment, the paddy crop suffered severe damage. A complaint was lodged with the Agriculture Department in Sonipat, leading to an inspection by the Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer and Assistant Plant Protection Officer. Their report dated 18.8.2009 concluded that two acres of the Complainant's paddy crop were entirely damaged, and the remaining 1½ acres were affected by 70 to 75%. The report attributed the crop damage to the pesticide purchased from Respondent No. 2 and manufactured by Respondent No. 1. Being aggrieved the Complainant filed a consumer complaint bearing no. 473 of 2009 before, District Forum and sought relief of sum of Rs.1,56,000/- on account of total loss of the Paddy Crop; Rs.10,000/- on account of mental agony; and Rs.5,000/- on account of litigation expenses.Top of Form

5.      Upon notice, Respondent No. 1 appeared and submitted a written statement before the district forum, while Respondent No. 2 proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 28.09.2010. Respondent No. 1 contested the allegations by asserting that the report from the Assistant Agriculture Officer and Assistant Plant Protection Officer of Sonipat, determining the extent of damage to the paddy crop, was speculative. Respondent No. 1 contended that the Agriculture Dept lacked the authority or proper measurement mechanisms to assess crop damage without prior authorization from the Deputy Commissioner, who holds the authority for such assessments. Respondent No. 1 alleged that the complainant used an excessive dose of Whip Super on their 3 kanal 2 marla paddy crop, deviating from recommended methods. Respondent No. 1 further contended that the Agriculture Department officers failed to employ proper technical methods in evaluating the purported damage as claimed by the complainant. Respondent No. 1 denied any deficiency in their service and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

6.      The learned District Forum in its Order dated 30.11.2010 accepted /allowed the complaint and granted the following relief to the Complainant:

"Accordingly, this Forum finds force in the present complaint I qua respondent No. 1 and thus, direct the respondent No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00.000/- (Rs. one lac) in total to the complainant on account of loss of paddy crop and further to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- (Rs. two thousand) for rendering deficient services, for causing mental agony, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses. The respondent No. 1 is also directed to make the compliance of this order within one month from the date of pronouncement of this order."

7.      Being aggrieved by the Order of the District forum, the Appellant / OP-1 filed Appeal No. 1913/2010 before the State Commission, Haryana. The State Commission vide Order dated 23.01.2012 dismissed the Appeal and confirmed the Order passed by the District Forum, with the following observation: -

“Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the appellant-opposite parties have rightly been held deficient in service. However, at the same time we feel that the compensation awarded to the complainant is on higher side and we reduce the same from rupees one lac to rupees ninety thousand. Without any other interference in the impugned order, this appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid modification.”

8.      Being dissatisfied by the Impugned Order dated 23.01.2012 passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner / OP No. 1 has filed the instant Revision Petition bearing no. 2842 of 2012.

9.      I have examined the pleadings and other associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful attention to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for both the parties.

10.     It is a well settled position in law that revision under section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, (which is pari materia to Section 21(b) the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) confers very limited scope on this Commission. In the present case there are concurrent findings of the facts and the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order passed by the State Commission warranting any interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269 are very clear. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 432 OF 2022 order dated 21.01.2022, has held as under: -

"9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

11. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31, has held that:-

As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its 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. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record.

12.    Based on the above discussion and established precedents, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is, therefore dismissed. Consequently, the impugned Order passed by the learned State Commission is upheld. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

13.    All other pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of.