IMPORTANT POINT
Approach of Consumer Forum has to be rational consistent with purpose of the Act rather than technical.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 14(1)-Defective goods-Compensation-Grant of compensation would not depend upon whether he should have made alternative arrangement-10 bags of paddy seeds purchased by complainant-appellant from respondent for raising paddy in 7 acres of land-Seeds germinated to extent of 10 to 20% in nursery and could not be transplanted in field-District Forum directed respondent to pay Rs. 17,500 by way of refund of price of seeds and damages due to loss of crop-State Commission in appeal reduced compensation to Rs. 1000/- on a reasoning that appellant when found seed did not germinate in nursery ought to have taken another lot of seed to raise crop-National Commission upheld order of State Commission in revision-Appeal-State Commission committed serious error in its approach in expecting appellant to take steps to avoid loss-Approach was mere theoretical and not reasonable-Impugned order was liable to be set aside and that of District Forum to be restored.
       Held : In our view, the State Commission committed a serious error in its approach in expecting the appellant to take steps to avoid loss to him even though admittedly the goods supplied by the respondent were defective. The approach of the State Commission was merely theoretical and not reasonable there being no supporting facts or pleadings in that regard. It may be pointed out that the respondent did not plead before the District Forum or the State Commission that the appellant by taking care or by making alternative arrangement could have saved himself from the loss. The State Commission was also not right in modifying the order of the District Forum merely on the basis that the appellant could have been careful and could have cultivated 7 acres of his land by securing other seeds. It did not keep in mind that the nature of agricultural operation, sowing the seeds in the nursery for germination and transplanting them thereafter in the land depended entirely on the season and the timing required; delay of two weeks in putting the seeds or transplanting them may not be useful and many times it may not help raising paddy crop even if it is sown; may be yield would have been minimum and unviable. Be that as it may, neither there was a pleading nor there was evidence touching this aspect of the matter. (Para 5)
       The State Commission also has not kept in mind the very object of the Act which was enacted to better protect the interest of the consumers. The Act is one of the benevolent pieces of legislation intended to protect a large body of consumers from exploitation. The provisions of the Act ought to be interpreted in a rational manner for achieving the objective set forth in the Act. The approach of the Forums has to be rational consistent with the purpose of the Act rather than technical. In Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society vs. M. Lalitha (Dead) through LRs. & Ors. [(2004) 1 SCC 305], this Court has expressed that "Having due regard to the scheme of the Act and purpose sought to be achieved to protect the interest of the consumers better, the provisions are to be interpreted broadly, positively and purposefully." (Para 7)

JUDGMENT

Shivaraj V. Patil, J.-The appellant approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short the District Forum ) by complaining that he purchased 10 bags of paddy seeds from the respondent @ 135 per bag for the purpose of showing and transplanting the seedlings to raise paddy in 7 acres of his land. When he sowed the seeds in the nursery, they did not germinate properly. He made complaint to the respondent; the respondent deputed the Agricultural Extension Officer to inspect the land and to submit his report about the quality of the seeds supplied to the appellant; the said Officer having inspected the spot, reported that the germination was hardly upto 10 to 20%: having received the report, the respondent addressed a letter to the Marketing Officer, National Seed Corporation, Mysore, stating that on account of sub-standard paddy seeds sold to the appellant, the appellant had to leave 7 acres of his land fallow and uncultivated and that the National Seed Corporation was liable to make good the loss. The National Seed Corporation, in spite of the request of the respondent, did not depute any technical expert to inspect the spot for assessment. According to the appellant, in the normal course, he would have received 50 quintals of paddy from 7 acres of his land, the value of the same would have been Rs. 15,750/- calculated at the lowest rate prevailing at the relevant time. He, therefore, claimed a sum of Rs. 17,100/- with consequential reliefs from the respondent. The only defence of the respondent was that the National Seed Corporation, which supplied the paddy seeds, was directly responsible for making good the loss and it should have been made party to the proceedings and that the respondent was not responsible to make good the loss. It was not disputed that the respondent had sold paddy seeds @ 135/- per bag to the appellant. The District Forum on admitted facts held that the respondent was a "trader" in relation to the appellant. Both the parties filed respective affidavits before the District forum and the appellant, in addition, produced two documents in support of his claim. The District Forum noticed that the statement made in the affidavit of the appellant, that he could not raise and harvest paddy in 7 acres of his land due to non-germination of the seeds purchased by him, was not denied by the respondent; the respondent had only pleaded his ignorance as to whether the appellant had to leave 7 acres of his land uncultivated. Having considered the contentions of the parties and the material placed before it, the District Forum directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 17,500/- to the appellant by way of refunding of the price of the paddy seeds and damages caused to him as a result of the transaction. A further direction was given to pay Rs. 100/- as cost to the appellant.

2. The respondent took up the matter in appeal before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State commission ). The State commission concurred with the findings recorded by the District Forum but modified the order of the District Forum directing the respondent to pay and refund a sum of Rs. 1,350/-, the price of the seeds, to the appellant with interest thereon at 18% per annum from the date of its purchase. The State Commission also awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation to the appellant. The reason for modifying the amount of compensation to be paid to the appellant is to be seen in paragraph 7 of the order of the State Commission which reads:-

"7. The germination of the paddy seeds in the nursery takes place within a period of 8-10 days after its sowing. Therefore, the complainant would be able to know whether it was a proper germination or not within a period of 10-12 days. When the complainant had come to know about that there was no proper germination, he would have purchased some other seeds and put it in the nursery and transplanted the same in his land, which he has not done. Simply b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 670

IMPORTANT POINTApproach of Consumer Forum has to be rational consistent with purpose of the Act rather than technical.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
Approach of Consumer Forum has to be rational consistent with purpose of the Act rather than technical.