Respondent/complainant purchased weed killer chemical whip super and trans manufactured by the petitioner through respondent no.2 for Rs.8,145/-on 31.7.2008 in an agricultural fair organized by M.P. Agriculture Department and applied the same in his fields but -2- instead of getting destroyed the weeds grew more in quantity as a result of which the crops suffered badly. Respondent approached the Agriculture Officer who conducted the inspection and assessed the loss at Rs.50,000/-. Agriculture Inspector in his report, after giving notice to the petitioner and carrying out the inspection, held that the petitioner was guilty of supplying defective chemicals. As the amount was not paid, respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum. On being served, petitioner entered appearance and engaged a counsel but no reply was filed. District Forum taking the facts stated in the complaint, which were duly supported by affidavit in evidence and the report of the Agriculture Officer as the same had not been rebutted by the petitioner by filing reply or leading any evidence, to be correct allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.8,145/- towards the costs of the fertilizer and a compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Rs.1,000/- were awarded by way of costs. -3- Petitioner being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. Although, the petitioner had not filed its reply or lead any evidence, counsel for the petitioner raised an argument that the petitioner did not manufacture the base chemical ‘Trans’ and, therefore, it could not have been held responsible for the defective fertilizer/chemicals supplied. The State Commission rejected this contention by observing that if the weedicide is manufactured by the petitioner and it caused damages to the crops instead of saving it, then it is immaterial that the petitioner got the ingredients from somebody else. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission and find no substance in this revision petition. Since the petitioner did not effectively contest the complaint and rebut the allegations made in the complaint, the fora below were justified in allowing the complaint filed by the respondent taking the facts stated in the complaint, which were duly supported by an affidavit in evidence and the report of the District Agriculture Officer, to be correct. We find no infirmity in the -4- impugned order. Dismissed. | 
