Back
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HYDERABAD
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Parvatha Rao, President;
Mr. K. Ranga Rao & Dr. (Mrs.) Mamata Lakshmanna, Members
MAHARASHTRA HYBRID SEEDS CO. LTD.—Appellant
versus
S. PANDAIAH & ANR.—Respondents
F.A. Nos. 245 to 266 of 1997 and 438 to 456 of 1997—Decided on 19.1.1999
For the Appellant :Mr. S.M. Dhanuka and Mr. S. Raj Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 1:Mr. V. Bheemayya, Advocate.
The purchase of seeds for commercial purposes does not fall within the definition of 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and therefore, complaints related to such purchases are not maintainable before consumer fora.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 2(1)(g) - DEFECTIVE SEEDS - COMPENSATION - PURCHASE OF SEEDS FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSE - JURISDICTION OF DISTRICT FORUM - EVIDENCE OF PURCHASE OF SEEDS FROM MANUFACTURER - LIABILITY OF MANUFACTURER AND AGENT - QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION.
Fact of the Case:
Complaints were filed before the District Forum alleging that the watermelon seeds purchased from the 1st opposite party (manufacturer) through the 2nd opposite party (agent) were defective, resulting in stunted growth, low yield, and financial loss to the complainants. The District Forum allowed the complaints and directed both opposite parties to pay compensation to the complainants.
Finding of the Court:
The State Commission held that there was no evidence to show that the seeds purchased by the complainants from the 2nd opposite party were manufactured by the 1st opposite party. It also held that the purchase of seeds by the complainants was for commercial purposes, and therefore, the complaints were not maintainable. However, the State Commission upheld the District Forum's orders against the 2nd opposite party.
Issues: 1. Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party (manufacturer) in supplying defective watermelon seeds? 2. Whether the purchase of seeds by the complainants was for commercial purposes, thereby excluding them from the definition of 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? 3. Whether the District Forum had jurisdiction to entertain the complaints? 4. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the District Forum was reasonable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The State Commission held that there was no evidence to show that the seeds purchased by the complainants from the 2nd opposite party were manufactured by the 1st opposite party. It relied on the fact that the complainants admitted to purchasing the seeds in loose packets, without labels or seals of the 1st opposite party. 2. The State Commission held that the purchase of seeds by the complainants was for commercial purposes, as they were intended to be used for raising crops on a large scale for sale. It relied on the fact that the complainants had purchased relatively large quantities of seeds. 3. The State Commission held that the District Forum had jurisdiction to entertain the complaints, as the complainants had purchased the seeds within the jurisdiction of the District Forum and had sown them in their respective lands located within the same jurisdiction. 4. The State Commission held that the quantum of compensation awarded by the District Forum was reasonable, as it had taken into consideration the agricultural expenses incurred by the complainants, the value of the yield realized, and the estimated net income per acre.
Final Decision: The State Commission allowed the appeals filed by the 1st opposite party (manufacturer) and set aside the orders of the District Forum against it. However, it dismissed the cross-appeals filed by the complainants seeking enhancement of compensation.
Mr. K. Ranga Rao, Member—One S. Pandaiah and other Ryots of Nekkonda village in Jedcherla Mandal of Mahabubnagar District filed complaints numbered as CD 109 to 119, 127, 147 to 155 of 1992 and 36 of 1993 against the Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Limited (1st opposite party) and Vasuda Agencies, Jedcherla (2nd opposite party) before the Mahabubnagar District Forum alleging that they purchased watermelon seeds manufactured by the 1st opposite party through the 2nd opposite party who is said to be the agent of the 1st opposite party and sowed the same in their respective lands and raised the crops by spending huge amounts for purchasing fertilisers, pesticides and for other agricultural operations, that because of the defect in the watermelon seeds the fruits were of stunted growth with less weight, and the yield was very low, on account of defective quality of seeds and that they sustained huge loss. They prayed for directions to the opposite parties to pay different amounts towards compensation depending upon the extent of their lands in which they raised the crop.
2. The 1st opposite party filed a counter contending that the Mahabubnagar District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints as the matter has to be dealt with under the Seeds Act, that there is no evidence to show that the seeds purchased by the complainants were manufactured by the 1st opposite party, that because the seeds were not sent to the loboratory for testing purpose as required under Section 13(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘the Act’ for short) there cannot be any finding that the seeds were defective, that the case requires detailed enquiry after taking considerable evidence, that the purchase of the seeds is for commercial purpose and, therefore, the complaints are not maintainable, that the complaints are false and frivolous and that the complaints are liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. The 2nd opposite party also filed a counter admitting that the complainants purchased different quantities of watermelon seeds manufactured and supplied by the 1st opposite party and contending that he has not given any guarantee for good yield, that he is not liable to pay any compensation since the 1st opposite party is the manufacturer, that the seeds were not tested in any laboratory, that there is no evidence to show that the seeds sold by him alone were sown in the lands of the complainants, that the loss of crop might be due to lack of fertility in the soil, due to bad weather conditions, etc., and that in any event he is not liable to pay compensation.
4. At the time of enquiry the complainants filed their respective affidavits and also got marked some documents. The complainant in CD No. 109/1992 got Exs. A-1 to A-16 marked in support of his case. Ex. A-13 is the copy of the letter written by the Executive Officer, Mandal Karshak Parishad, Midzil to the Assistant Director, Horticulture, Mahabubnagar. Ex. A-14 is the copy of the letter written by the Executive Officer, Mandal Karshak Parishad, Jadcherla to the Assistant Director, Horticulture, Mahabubnagar. Ex. A-15 is the copy of the letter written by the Assistant Director, Horticulture, Mahabubnagar to the Deputy Director of Research, R.A.R.S., Palem. Ex. A-16 is the printed pamphlet issued by Bharateeya Kisan Sangh, Jedcherla. Though these documents were not exhibited in the other complaints the District Forum relied upon these documents while deciding the other complaints also. The opposite parties filed cross-questionnaire and the complainants filed their replies in the form of affidavits. Written arguments were also filed on behalf of the 1st opposite party. No evidence, either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the opposite parties.
5. After considering the material on record and after hearing both sides, the District Forum decided each matter individually. The District Forum found that it has jurisdiction to entertain the complaints, that because the complainants
