National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Hariyali Kissan Bazaar & Anr. vs Akbar Khan on 10 June, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2408 OF 2011 (Against the Order dated 16/05/2011 in Appeal No. 45/2011 of the State Commission Rajasthan) 1. HARIYALI KISSAN BAZAAR & ANR. Manor Road, Khairthali Mandi Alwar Rajasthan 2. Haryali Kishan Bazaar 6th Floor Kanchanjanga Building, 18 barakhamba Road, New Delhi Delhi ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. AKBAR KHAN Banjirka, tehsil, Ramgarh Alwar Rajasthan ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr.Pardeep Dahiya,Adv. for
Mr.M.K. Bishnoi, Adv. For the Respondent : NEMO
Dated : 10 Jun 2015 ORDER
Heard.
2. Complainants/Respondents, had purchased certain onion seeds from the Petitioners/Opposite Parties, under the belief and assurance from them, that same are of superior quality. On sowing the same in the agricultural land, the seeds were found to be defective as entire crop had spoiled. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners, respondents filed separate consumer complaints, i.e. (Consumer Complaints No.130 and 129 of 2010) before the District Forum, seeking compensation of ₹10 lakh, in each case.
3. Petitioners in their written version took the plea, that respondents have not submitted any evidence to show that the seeds were of inferior quality. Further, respondents did not get tested the fertility of the soil of their fields. In the absence of which, petitioners cannot be blamed for spoilage of the onion production.
4. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alwar Rajasthan (for short, 'District Forum') vide separate orders dated 21.01.2011, allowed the complaints and passed following order;
"Therefore, it is directed that an amount of ₹35,000/- be paid to the complainant by the opposite party towards loss of agriculture produce and an amount of ₹5,000/-towards mental agony and litigation expenses. It was further directed that the aforesaid total amount of ₹40,000/- be paid to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of order, failing which he shall be further entitled to an interest @ 18% p.a. from 22.1.2010 being the date of filing of complaint till the date of realization."
5. Being aggrieved, petitioners filed First Appeal (Nos.457 and 458 of 2011) before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short, 'State Commission'), which vide separate orders dated 16.05.2011, dismissed the appeals.
6. Hence, these revisions.
7. The main grouse of petitioner is, that State Commission decided the appeals in a mechanical manner. There is no application of mind, since no reasons whatsoever have been given by the State Commission.
8. Relevant portion of translated copy of impugned order, in First Appeal (No. 457 of 2008) read as under;
"After considering all the facts and circumstances of the matter, it is seen that there is no error in the order dated 20.1.2011 passed by the District Forum, Alwar in Case no. 130/2010. The order of the District Forum is based on facts and there is no need for any interference and the appeal of the appellant being devoid of merit is liable to be rejected. Therefore, the appeal is rejected and the order passed by the District Forum, Alwar in Case no. 130/2010 on20.01.2011 is upheld."
9. After going through the above order, it is apparent that no reasons whatsoever have been given by the State Commission, while deciding the appeals. The State Commission has not discussed at all the facts of the case nor it has considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties.
10. In this regard, we would like to apprise the State Commission about the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in its various pronouncements.
11. In HVPNL Vs. Mahavir (2004) 10 SCC 86, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held ;
"4. At the admission stage, we passed an order on 21.7.2000 as follows;
In a number of cases coming up in appeal in this Court, we find that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh is passing a standard order in the following terms:
'We have heard the Law Officer of HVPNL, appellant and have also perused the impugned order. We do not find any legal in the details and well-reasoned order passed by District Forum, Kaithal. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal'.
We may point out that while dealing with a first appeal, this is not the way to dispose of the matter. The appellant forum is bound to refer to the pleadings of the case, the submissions of the counsel, necessary points for consideration, discuss the evidence and dispose of the matter by giving valid reasons. It is very easy to dispose of any appeal in this fashion and the higher courts would not know whether learned State Commission had applied its mind to the case. We hope that such orders will not be passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh in future. A copy of this order may be communicated to the Commission".
12. Again, in Canadian 4 Ur Immigration Ser & Anr. Vs. Lakhwinder Singh, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. (s) 8811/ 2009, decided on 21.2.2011, Hon'ble Apex Court observed ;
"A bare perusal of the impugned order of the National Commission shows that no reasons have been recorded therein. It is well settled that even an order of affirmance must contain reasons, even though in brief, vide Divisional Forest Officer VS. Madhusudan Rao, JT 2008 (2) SC 253, vide para 19. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the National Commission is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the National Commission to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned and by giving reasons".
13. In view of the above decisions (supra) of Hon'ble Supreme Court, impugned orders cannot be sustained. The same are patently illegal. Therefore, the impugned orders are set aside. Present petitions stand allowed. Both matters are remanded back to the State Commission, to decide the same afresh in accordance with the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
14. The State Commission shall make an endeavour to dispose of the appeals preferably, within a period of one year from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
15. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 29th July, 2015.
16. Dasti.
......................J V.B. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER