Back
2009 Supreme(UK) 33
2009(2) CPR 130 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI
Ashok Bhan, President and B.K. Taimni, Member
National Seeds Corporation Ltd. —Petitioner
versus
Nalia Narsimha Rao —Respondent
Revision Petition No. 131 to 150 of 2003
All decided on 11.2.2009
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sudhir Kulshreshtha, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. ATM Rangaramanujam, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Gouri Das and Ms. Anu Gupta, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Where a complainant alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 13—Burden to prove the deficiency—Where a complainant alleged a defect in goods which could not be determined without proper analysis or test of goods, Forum to get sample tested from appropriate laboratory—Respondent-complainants, twenty in number, purchased tomato seeds from petitioner but it did yield crop—Compensation claim for loss—District Forum appointed Advocate Commissioner who had conducted local inspection and assessed loss with assistance of Associate Professor, Department of Horticulture—Local Commission confirmed that crop failure was attributable to defective seeds—District Forum accordingly allowed compensation for loss in each case—State Commission upheld the award—Revision—Seeds Control Order did not debar any other agency from conducting an enquiry into causes of failure to crop other than officers mentioned in order—Report submitted by expert could be taken into consideration even if there was no analysis of seeds from laboratory—However, inspection by Local Commission was confined to inspection of only eight fields of eight complainants—Compensation for loss in respect only of those eight complaints could be sustained and in respect of other 12 complaints impugned order was liable to be set aside. (Paras 8, 9, 18 to 25)
Result: Revision disposed of.
Ashok Bhan, President—We propose to dispose of these revision petitions by a common order as the facts and the questions of law involved in these revision petitions are the same. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Khammam (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’ for short) as well as the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’ for short) have also disposed of all the cases by a common /similar order.
Shortly sated, the facts are:
2. Respondent—Nalia Narasimha Rao, in his complaint, alleged that being an agriculturist labourer, he used to take land from others on lease and raise tomato crop to earn his livelihood. That he purchased tomato seeds vide receipt Nos. 9431, 9439 and 9440 dated 2.7.1995 and 17.7.1995, respectively from the Manager, Sales Counter, National Seeds Corporation, Vijayawada along with other farmers, i.e., one D. Gopaiah and R. Venkateswar Rao and the same were sown in 4 acres at the rate of 180 grams per acre totalling to 720 grams in the month of August, 1995. That he expected to get net profit of Rs.15,000 per acre. However, to his utter surprise and dismay, there was no fruit/yield from the tomato plants. That he approached the opposite party petitioner herein and requested them to come and assess the damage to the crop. However, the petitioner did not turn up in spite of several demands and requests.
3. Vexed with the attitude of the petitioner, he filed the complaint before the District Forum stating that he sustained a loss of Rs. 60,000 due to the inferior quality of tomato seeds supplied to him by the petitioner.
4. Petitioner, who was the opposite party, in his written statement, denied that the respondent had purchased the damaged seeds from them. It was stated that the Corporation used to purchase the quality seeds of different crop varieties from the selected farmers through an agreement subject to meeting/conforming the prescribed standards as per Indian Minimum Seed Qualification Standards, at field and laboratory level, etc. The seeds are also certified under grow out test to confirm its genetic purity standards. That the complainant had failed to send the seeds to any laboratory for analysis. That the yield depends on several factors including fertility of land, proper raising of nursery, timely transplantation, temperature, irrigation facilities, timely pest control measures and sowing the seeds within the sowing period. A preliminary objection was taken that the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Khammam did not have the territorial jurisdiction as the seeds were purchased at Vijayawada. According to the petitioner, only the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vijayawada had the territorial jurisdiction. That the seeds were purchased by one D. Jeorge of Yerrupalem and not by the respondent.
5. In order to prove his case, the respondent complainant got himself examined as PW1 and got marked Exhibits A1 to A12 whereas the petitioner examined RW1 as Area Manager and RW2 who was also its employee. The petitioner also got marked Exhibit B1 on its behalf.
6. Complainant, while appearing as PW1, reiterated the contents of the complaint and relied upon Ext. A1 to A12, i.e., Ext. A1 Cash Memo dated 2.7.1995 for Rs. 300 issued by Vijayawada Branch in favour of D. Jerge (Jeorge), Ext. A2 is the Commissioner’s report dated 31.1.1996, Ext. A3 is the Land Lease Agreement dated 12.4.1995, Ext. A4 is the Cash Bill dated 4.7.1995 for Rs. 6,100 issued by Sri Srinivasa Pesticides, Yerrupalem, Ext. A5 is the Cash Bill dated 8.9.1995 for Rs.6,240 issued by Sri Srinivasa Pesticides, Yerrupalem, Ext. A6 is the Bill dated 8.7.1995 for Rs. 9,170 issued by Sri Venkateswara Fertilizers, Yerrupalem, Ext. A7 is receipt for Rs.3,480, Ext. A8 is receipt for Rs. 8,000, Ext. A9 is receipt for Rs. 1,760, Ext. A10 is Affidavit dated 4.11.1996 given by Kondepati Narasimha Rao, Remidicherla, Ext. A11 is Affidavi
