Justice S.K. Kulshreshtha, President.(Oral):

1. This order will govern disposal of all the above mentioned appeals under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), as they raise a common question with regard to purity of weedicide used by the respondent No. 1-complainants manufactured by appellants-E.I. Dupont Pvt. Ltd. and Saraswati Agro Chemical India Pvt. Ltd. The facts have however, been taken from the record of the appellant No. 10/2009, filed against the order dated 17.11.2008, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ratlam in case No. 17/08, unless otherwise indicated.

2. According to respondent No. 1-complainant he had used the weedicide manufactured by the appellants but the weeds remained in the field itself. Learned Counsel for appellants submits that the literature given to the farmers contains full instructions for making the solution, which requires 15 gm. Kloben to be mixed with 8 glasses of water and the solution is required to be stirred vigorously. In this mixture 300 mm. Whip Super is required to be added then again mix the solution thoroughly and then add 250 ml. Surfactant and mix the solution. Thereafter, a glass of solution has to be used for a tank of water (sprinkler container and vigorously stirred. Learned Counsel for appellant submits that there is no evidence to show that the famers adopted the said method for the use of weedicide. He has further stated that if the instructions were not followed then the proper result would not ensue. Learned Counsel submits that a request was made to examining the weedicide by a laboratory but the Forum has not accepted it.

3. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 1-complainant submits that the farmers had used the weedicide in the prescribed proportion.

4. The report of the Senior Agriculture Extension Officer and Fertilizer/Pesticide and Seed Inspector contains the statements of the farmers and there is difference with regard to percentage of each chemicals used for the solutions and the method of mixing. Learned Counsel for appellant submits that the proportion of the chemical should be synchronized and cannot be deviated from. If the solution is stronger or lighter than the prescribed quantity it will not be effective on the weeds. From the documents on record it is difficult to come to the conclusion that it was on account of some defect in the weedicide that the weeds could not be eradicated. The Senior Agriculture Extension Officer and Fertilizer/Pesticide and Seed Inspector have both advised the farmers to weed out the weeds manually. They did not find any defect in the weedicide of the Company. If there was any defect in the weedicide they ought to have pointed it out.

5. From the above discussion one can deduce that the weedicide were not used in proper proportion and on the contrary each farmer mixed it differently and, therefore, it cannot be said that the weedicide was defective. At this distance of time when expiry date of the weedicide had passed, it is not possible to examine the weedicide of the batch, which was supplied to the farmers. Under these circumstances, it is doubtful that the prop of the farmers suffered on account of any defect in the weedicide.

6. Accordingly, on the ba

sis of evidence available on record, it cannot be said that the weedicide was defective or had any latent or patent defect. Thus, all the appeals deserve to be allowed. 7. All the appeals are, accordingly, allowed and the order passed by the District Forum is set aside. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeals allowed.