PETITIONER:
M/S MAHARASHTRA HYBRID SEEDS CO. LTD.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
ALAVALAPATI CHANDRA REDDY & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/08/1998
BENCH:
K. VENKATASWAMI
ACT
HEADNOTE
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENTK. Venkataswami, J.
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.
The respondents 1 and 2 moved the District Forum, Cuddapah, in Consumer Dispute No. 441/91, complaining that the sum-flower seeds produced by the appellant and sold through the third respondent, on sowing, did not germinate by reason of defects in the seeds. They claimed, apart from the cost of seeds, a compensation 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 complaint regarding defective seeds as provided under Section 13(1)(C) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has not been adopted 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 t he seeds itself was for growing the sum-flower plants for commercial purpose. The District Forum, on a consideration f 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.
Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the appellant-company preferred an appeal before the State Commission, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. The State Commission elaborately considered the contentions raised before it and ultimately affirmed the order of the District Forum. The further revision before the National Forum, as noticed above, was dismissed summarily.
We would have appreciated the National Forum, had it discussed the matter on merits and disposed of the same after considering 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 brush ed aside. The State Commission, on the materials placed before it, found as follows :-
"In this case, the complainants
alleged that they have purchased
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
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 parties to give
compensation to them. It was
further mentioned 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
complainants 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
purchased 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 laboratory.
...................................
.........................
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 on
the complaint that there were rain
in the month of September, 1991 and
the complainants sowed the seeds
and its cannot be said that there
is any defect either in the manure
or in preparation of the soil for
sowing sunflower seeds."
In the light of above findings and in view of the conduct of the appellant in this case, we do not consider that we should exercise our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the order under appeal. Accordingly, 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.