Judgment

K. 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.

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 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 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 area in addition to the cost of the seeds.

3. 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.

4. 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 brushed 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 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 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 defect