IMPORTANT POINT
Revision petitions can be dismissed in limine on short ground of limitation.

D.K. Jain, President—This set of 11 Revision Petitions, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by M/s PHI Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Opposite Party No.1 in the Complaints under the Act, is directed against a common order, dated 05.06.2014, passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Bengaluru (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeals No. 2081 to 2091 of 2010. By the impugned order, while affirming the order dated 31.03.2010, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Gulbarga (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Cases No. CC/106/2007 to CC/116/2007, preferred by the Respondents/Complainants, the State Commission has dismissed the aforesaid Appeals, preferred by the Opposite Parties, including the Petitioner herein, and the cross Appeals, preferred by the Complainants for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the District Forum. All the said Appeals had been preferred by both the parties against a common order dated 31.03.2010, vide which, while partly allowing the Complaints, preferred by the Complainants, the District Forum had directed the Opposite Parties, i.e. the Petitioner, a Manufacturer of Hybrid Rice seeds, and its Dealer(s), to jointly and severally pay to the Complainants a sum, ranging between Rs.25,600/- and Rs.2,72,000/-, with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaints till realization, besides compensation between Rs.10,000/- and Rs.20,000/- and litigation costs, quantified at Rs.2,000/- each.

2. Since the issue involved in all the Complaints is the same and the District Forum and the State Commission have disposed of the Complaints/Appeals by their respective common orders, these Revision Petitions are also being disposed of by this common order.

3. The Complaints came to be filed under the following circumstances:

3.1 In November/December, 2006, the Complainants had purchased different numbers of Hybrid Rice seed bags, weighing 4 kg. each of Pioneer brand, produced and manufactured by the Petitioner, from its Dealer, Opposite Party No.2, at the rate of Rs.900/- per bag. After sowing the seeds, though the Complainants had taken all precautionary measures for growing the paddy crop by making huge investment towards fertilizers, pesticides, weed removal etc. but they noticed that at the time of semi-maturity stage of the said crop, there was no filling of paddy and it continued to have the empty husk. Subsequently, the paddy crop failed because of the said reason. The matter was brought to the notice of the Opposite Parties, with a request to conduct spot inspection of the fields but they did not turn up and the paddy crop was about to ruin completely. The Complainants harvested the crop and got yield of 10 to 12 quintals per acre of poor quality, in place of assured yield of 32 quintals per acre by the Opposite Parties. Since the paddy crop was of inferior quality, the said bags were sold at a lesser price. The Complainants requested the Seeds Inspector-cum-Assistant Director of Agriculture concerned for inspection of their fields but in vain.

3.2 In the aforesaid background, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties in selling defective seeds, resulting in certain monetary loss to the Complainants, the afore-noted Complaints came to be filed before the District Forum. The Complainants had prayed for a direction to the Opposite Parties for making good the loss with interest @ 18% p.a., along with compensation ranging between Rs.25,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- for the mental agony suffered by them.

4. On contest by the Opposite Parties, and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced before it, the District Forum, as noted above, partly allowed the Complaints and issued the afore-noted directions to the Opposite Parties.

5. Aggrieved, both the parties carried the matter further in their respective Appeals to the State Commission. However, the State Commission while affirming