IMPORTANT POINT
Loss of yield speaks to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on part of OPs.

Suresh Chandra, Member—This revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 15.12.2010 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore in appeal No.1405 of 2010 whereby the State Commission has partly allowed the appeal filed by the OPs including OP No.3 against the order dated 9.3.2010 passed by the District Forum, Hassan in complaint No.238 of 2009.

2. Brief facts of this case which are relevant for its disposal are that on 21.05.2009 respondent No. 1, who is the original complainant, being an agriculturist purchased the hybrid corn seeds from OP No.3/respondent No.2 who is the authorized dealer for selling seeds produced by OP Nos.1 & 2/ petitioners. As per the allegation, the OPs promised good yield to the extent of 40 quintals per acre. The crop of corn is of 4 months. The hybrid seeds in question were sown by the complainant by providing manure, pesticides, water as contemplated. In spite of all this, he could not get the expected yield. The actual yield was only 10 quintals as against the 40 quintals promised. Thus, for no fault of the complainant/respondent No.1, he was made to suffer loss of 180 quintals of corn hybrid seeds. During the relevant period, the cost was Rs.900/- per quintal. So, in all, the complainant suffered loss of more than Rs.2 lakhs. He approached the OPs requesting for compensation for the loss suffered by him but there was no favourable response to his repeated requests and demands in this regard. Thus, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant/respondent No.1 knocked the doors of the Consumer Fora by filing the consumer complaint in question before the District Forum in respect of the agricultural loss suffered by him and praying for relief. On appearance, the OPs filed their version denying all the allegations made by the complainant. According to the OPs, they had promised 30 quintals of yield per acre and not 40 quintals as alleged by the complainant. It was further stated that there was no proof that the seeds supplied by the OPs were of sub-standard quality. According to the OPs, it was because of carelessness and negligence on the part of the complainant that he could not get proper yield. Thus, denying any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. The litigating parties led evidence and produced the documents in support of their contentions. After hearing their arguments, the District Forum allowed the complaint vide its order dated 9.3.2010 and granted the following relief:-

“1. Complaint is eligible to get the compensation.

2. The respondents shall pay compensation on supply quality less corn seeds which causes a loss of Rs.1,50,000 and Rs.50,000 loss being occurred due to seeds maintenance growing expenses, and pesticides and other material and labour expenses and Rs.2,000/- for the legal expenses incurred to maintain the said case and pay such amount of compensation along with 10% compounding interest thereon to the farmer and get receipt.”

4. Aggrieved of the aforesaid order of the District Forum, an appeal was filed by the petitioners before the State Commission which, as stated above, was partly allowed in terms of the impugned order dated 15.12.2010 and the order of the District Forum was modified as under:-

“OP is directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,08,000/- together with interest @ 10% P.A. from the date of purchase of seeds till realization and also pay litigation costs of Rs.2,000/-.

This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of communication of this Order.”

5. Not satisfied with the partial relief given by the State Commission vide its impugned order, the manufacturing company, i.e., OP Nos. 1 & 2 have filed the present revision petition challenging the order of the State Commission.

6. We have heard learned counsel Shri Aditya Narain and Shri Shanshank Bhushan, Advocates for the petitioner