The complainant, an agriculturist, purchased pesticides from a dealer, Respondent No. 2, based on the latter's recommendation, to combat weeds in his rice crop. Despite following the provided instructions, his crop suffered substantial damage. An inspection by agricultural experts confirmed the damage, attributing it to the pesticide spray. The complainant, alleging deficiency in service, sought compensation for financial losses and mental distress.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum ruled in favor of the complainant, directing the manufacturer, the Petitioner, and the dealer to jointly and severally pay compensation for the crop damage, along with interest and litigation costs. This decision was upheld by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and the dealer.

Reliance on Expert Reports: The State Commission emphasized the weightage of expert reports from independent public servants, even without laboratory analysis of samples. The Commission noted that the manufacturer could have sought sample analysis but failed to do so. This position aligned with the precedent set by the Supreme Court in National Seeds Corporation Limited Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & another.

Product Labeling and Usage Instructions: A crucial point of contention was the manufacturer's claim that the pesticide was not recommended for rice crops. However, they failed to produce the product's label or leaflet, which would have substantiated this claim. The Commission held that without such evidence, it was difficult to conclude that the complainant was aware of the usage restrictions.

Principles of Natural Justice: The petitioner argued that the inspection conducted by agricultural officers without prior notice violated the principles of natural justice. However, the lack of challenge to the district forum's handling of the application for sample testing weakened this argument.

Limitations of Revisional Jurisdiction: The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission emphasized the limited scope of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Commission reiterated that it should not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower forums unless there is a jurisdictional error or material irregularity, citing precedents like Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. & Anr. and Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd..

The National Commission dismissed the petitioner's revision petition, upholding the concurrent findings of the District Forum and the State Commission. The Commission found no merit in the petitioner's arguments and emphasized the importance of clear product labeling and adherence to usage instructions.

This case serves as a reminder of the importance of clear communication and adherence to regulations in the agricultural sector, particularly concerning pesticide usage. It also highlights the efficacy of the consumer redressal system in protecting the rights of consumers, especially in cases involving agricultural products. The decision reinforces the limitations of revisional jurisdiction, ensuring that concurrent findings of fact are not lightly overturned.