http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: M/S MAHARASHTRA HYBRID SEEDS CO. LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ALAVALAPATI CHANDRA REDDY & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       18/08/1998

BENCH: K. VENKATASWAMI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T K. Venkataswami, J.      The  appellant-company,   aggrieved  by   the   summary dismissal of  its Revision Petition No. 225/93 on 27.7.93 by the National  Consumer Disputes  Redressal  Commission,  New Delhi, has filed this appeal by special leave.      The respondents  1 and  2  moved  the  District  Forum, Cuddapah, in  Consumer Dispute  No. 441/91, complaining that the sum-flower  seeds produced  by the  appellant  and  sold through the  third respondent,  on sowing, did not germinate by reason  of defects in the seeds. They claimed, apart from the cost  of seeds,  a compensation  of Rs. 5,000/- per acre from the  appellant. The  claim was  resisted,  inter  alia, contending that  the seeds  Act, 1966  and the  Rules framed thereunder being  a complete  Code, provides remedies to the aggrieved party  and,  therefore,  the  complaint  preferred before the  District Forum was not maintainable. It was also contended that  the test  to find out the correctness of the complaint  regarding   defective  seeds  as  provided  under Section 13(1)(C)  of the  Consumer Protection  Act, 1986 has not been  adopted and  without that, the appellant cannot be held liable for compensation. It  was further contended that the complainants  are not consumers inasmuch as the purchase of t  he seeds  itself was for growing the sum-flower plants for  commercial   purpose.  The   District   Forum,   on   a consideration f  the materials  placed before  it, held that the appellant  was liable to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per acre in addition to the cost of the seeds.      Aggrieved by  the order  of  the  District  Forum,  the appellant-company  preferred  an  appeal  before  the  State Commission,  Andhra   Pradesh  at   Hyderabad.   The   State Commission elaborately  considered  the  contentions  raised before it  and ultimately affirmed the order of the District Forum. The  further revision  before the  National Forum, as noticed above, was dismissed  summarily.      We would  have appreciated  the National  Forum, had it discussed the  matter on  merits and  disposed of  the  same after considering  the question  of law  raised  before  it. Unfortunately, the  National Forum  has summarily  dismissed the Revision  Petition. The  question of law raised, namely,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

whether respondents  1 and  2 were  justified in  moving the Consumer Forum  for redressal  on the  facts of the case, is not  free  from  doubt.  However,  we  do  not  consider  it necessary to decide that question of law in this case as the findings of  the State  Commission on  facts  stare  at  the appellant, which cannot be lightly brush ed aside. The State Commission, on  the materials  placed before  it,  found  as follows :-      "In  this  case,  the  complainants      alleged that  they  have  purchased      the   seeds   from   the   opposite      parties. To  this extent,  there is      no  dispute.   According   to   the      complainants,  they  purchased  the      seeds   and    sowed   them.    The      Agricultural  Officer  reported  to      the   first   opposite   party   on      22.11.1991 through  a letter  which      mentioned that he sent the ryots of      which mentioned  that he  sent  the      ryots  of   Lingala  to   them   to      purchase the  sun flower  seeds  on      permits. But  those seeds  have not      germinated and  that he  personally      went and  saw. He  therefore  wrote      the   above   letter   asking   the      opposite    parties     to     give      compensation  to   them.   It   was      further mentioned  compensation  to      them. It was further mentioned that      they would be visiting the place on      27th. But they have not visited the      place. To  the aforesaid letter, no      reply  was  sent  by  the  opposite      parties. Thus,  it is clear that it      is on  the permit  granted  by  the      Agricultural   Officer   that   the      complainants purchased  seeds  from      the opposite  parties and  that the      same Agricultural  Officer  visited      the land  and found  that there was      no  germination.  In  view  of  the      letter written  by the Agricultural      Officer to  the opposite parties to      which they  sent  no  reply  it  is      clear that the same seeds that were      purchased from the opposite parties      were  sown   and   they   did   not      germinate. In view of the aforesaid      letter of the Agricultural Officer,      the District  Forum felt  that  the      seeds  need   not   be   sent   for      analysis. Moreover, if the opposite      parties  have   disputed  that  the      seeds were not defective they would      have applied  to the District Forum      to send  the samples  of seeds from      the  said  batch  for  analysis  by      appropriate  laboratory.   But  the      opposite parties have not chosen to      file any  application  for  sending      the seeds  to any laboratory. Since      it    is    probable    that    the      complainants  have   sown  all  the      seeds purchased  by them, they were

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

    not in a position to send seeds for      analysis. In  these  circumstances,      the order  of the District Forum is      not vitiated  by the  circumstances      that it  has not  on its own accord      sent the  seeds for  analysis by an      appropriate laboratory.      ...................................      .........................      It is  clear from the letter of the      Agricultural   Officer   that   the      opposite parties  in spite of their      promise never visited the fields of      the  complainants.   The   opposite      parties did not adduce any material      to show  that the  complainants did      not manure  properly or  that there      is some defect in the field. In the      absence of  such  evidence  and  in      view of the conduct of the opposite      parties not visiting the fields and      having regard  to the allegation on      the complaint  that there were rain      in the month of September, 1991 and      the complainants  sowed  the  seeds      and its  cannot be  said that there      is any  defect either in the manure      or in  preparation of  the soil for      sowing sunflower seeds."      In the  light of  above findings  and in  view  of  the conduct of  the appellant  in this  case, we do not consider that we  should exercise  our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the  Constitution of  India to  interfere with  the order under appeal.  Accordingly, we  leave the  question  of  law open, to  be decided  in an appropriate case and dismiss the appeal on  the facts of this case. There will be no order as to costs.