M/s. Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. Vs. Alavalapati Chandra Reddy & Ors.
Email(From the Judgment and Order dated 27.7.93 of the National Con-sumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in R.P.No.225 of 1993)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 27.7.93 of the National Con-sumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in R.P.No.225 of 1993)
D.Prakash Reddy and G.Prabhakar, Advocates for the Respondents
Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Section 13 (1)(c) Defective seeds – Consumer forum allowing compensation – Appeal to State Commission and revision to Nation-al Commission failed – Justification of moving consumer forum in presence of Seeds Act and Rules there – under – Question of law not considered by National Commission – Conduct of appellants not appreciable. Held that question of law left open to be decided in appropriate case, but there is no case to interfere under Art. 136 of constitution. (Paras 4,5)
1. The appellant – company, aggrieved by the summary dismissal of its Revision Petition No.225/93 on 27.7.93 by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, has filed this appeal by special leave.
2. The respondents 1 and 2 moved the District Forum, Cuddapah, in Consumer Dispute No.441/91, complaining that the sun-flower seeds produced by the appellant and sold through the third re-spondent, on sowing, did not germinate by reason of defects in the seeds. They claimed, apart from the cost of seeds, a compen-sation of Rs. 5,000/- per acre from the appellant. The claim was resisted, inter alia, contending that the Seeds Act, 1966 and the Rules framed thereunder being a complete Code, provides remedies to the aggrieved party and, therefore, the complaint preferred before the District Forum was not maintainable. It was also contended that the test to find out the correctness of the com-plaint regarding defective seeds as provided under Section 13(1)(C) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has not been adopt-ed and without that, the appellant cannot be held liable for compensation. It was further contended that the complainants are not consumers inasmuch as the purchase of the seeds itself was for growing the sun-flower plants for commercial purpose. The District Forum, on a consideration of the materials placed before it, held that the appellant was liable to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per acre in addition to the cost of the seeds.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the appell-ant-company preferred an appeal before the State Commission, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. The State Commission elaborately considered the contentions raised before it and ultimately af-firmed the order of the District Forum. The further revision before the National Forum, as noticed above, was dismissed sum-marily.
4. We would have appreciated the National Forum, had it dis-cussed the matter on merits and disposed of the same after con-sidering the question of law raised before it. Unfortunately, the National Forum has summarily dismissed the Revision Petition. The question of law raised, namely, whether respondents 1 and 2 were justified in moving the Consumer Forum for redressal on the facts of the case, is not free from doubt. However, we do not consider it necessary to decide that question of law in this case as the findings of the State Commission on facts stare at the appellant, which cannot be lightly brushed aside. The State Commission, on the materials placed before it, found as follows:-
“In this case, the complainants alleged that they have pur-chased the seeds from the opposite parties. To this extent, there is no dispute. According to the complainants, they purchased the seeds and sowed them. The Agricultural Officer reported to the first opposite party on 22.11.1991 through a letter which mentioned that he sent the ryots of Lingala to them to purchase the sun flower seeds on permits. But those seeds have not germinated and that he personally went and saw. He therefore wrote the above letter asking the opposite par-ties to give compensation to them. It was further mentioned that they would be visiting the place on 27th. But they have not visited the place. To the aforesaid letter, no reply was sent by the opposite parties. Thus, it is clear that it is on the permit granted by the Agricultural Officer that the com-plainants purchased seeds from the opposite parties and that the same Agricultural Officer visited the land and found that there was no germination. In view of the letter written by the Agricultural Officer to the opposite parties to which they sent no reply it is clear that the same seeds that were pur-chased from the opposite parties were sown and they did not germinate. In view of the aforesaid letter of the Agricultural Officer, the District Forum felt that the seeds need not be sent for analysis. Moreover, if the opposite parties have disputed that the seeds were not defective they would have applied to the District Forum to send the samples of seeds from the said batch for analysis by appropriate laboratory. But the opposite parties have not chosen to file any application for sending the seeds to any laboratory. Since it is probable that the complainants have sown all the seeds purchased by them, they were not in a position to send seeds for analysis. In these circumstances, the order of the District Forum is not vitiated by the circumstances that it has not on its own accord sent the seeds for analysis by an appropriate labora-tory.
………………………………………………..
………………………………………………..
It is clear from the letter of the Agricultural Officer that the opposite parties in spite of their promise never visited the fields of the complainants. The opposite parties did not adduce any material to show that the complainants did not manure properly or that there is some defect in the field. In the absence of such evidence and in view of the conduct of the opposite parties not visiting the fields and having regard to the allegation in the complaint that there were rain in the month of September, 1991 and the complainants sowed the seeds and it cannot be said that there is any defect either in the manure or in preparation of the soil for sowing sunflower seeds.”
5. In the light of the above findings and in view of the con-duct of the appellant in this case, we do not consider that we should exercise our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Consti-tution of India to interfere with the order under appeal. Accord-ingly, we leave the question of law open, to be decided in an appropriate case and dismiss the appeal on the facts of this case. There will be no order as to costs.
