State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1.The Branch Manager Hyderabad ... vs A.Narendhar Reddy, on 19 August, 2022
Before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
(under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019) of Telangana,
Eruvaka Building, Khai rathabad, Hyderabad - 500 004
FANO.247 OF 2018 AGAINST CC NO.93 OF 2016
ONTHE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM, ADILABAD
Between:
1) The Branch Manager,
Hyderabad Agricultural Cooperative
Association Limited (HACA),
near ZP Office, Adilabad - 504 001.
2 The General Manager/Managing Director,
Hyderabad Agricultural Cooperative
Association Limited (HACA),
HACA Bhavan, Opp: Public Gardens,
Hyderabad.
..Appellants/Opposite parties
And
A.Narendhar Reddy S/o Lacha Reddy,
aged about 42 years,
Occupation: Farmer,
R/o Karanji village, Tamsi mandal,
Adilabad district.
.Respondent/Complainant
Counsel for the Appellants Sri Keerthi Kiran Kota
Counsel for the Respondent Sri Vijay Kumar
Coram
Hon'ble Sri Justice MSK Jaiswal President
and
Smt Meena Ramanathan Member
Friday, the Nineteenth day of August Two Thousand Twenty Two Oral Order * This is an appeal filed by the Appellants aggrieved by the orders dated 23.05.2018 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Adilabad in CC No.93/2016 in allowing the complaint in part and directing the Opposite parties therein to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization and also to pay incidental charges of Rs.10,000/-; damages of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/-, granting time of four weeks for compliance.
2referred to as arrayed the parties are
2) For the sake of convenience, in the complaint.
is that he is an agriculturist T h e case of the Complainant, in brief, Adilabad district bearing having lands at Karanji sivar of Tamsi mandal, and cultivating the Sy.No.125 and 86 to an extent of Ac. 10.00 guntas He same since long. He is having experience in raising soyabeen crop.
No. 1 vide bill purchased 10 bags of soya bean seed from Opposite party No.192215 dated 11.06.2015 for a consideration of Rs.21,000/- @ Rs.2,100/- per bag bearing variety No.J.S.335 F/S, produced, developed and marketed by Opposite party No.2. He had sown the said seed in his land admeasuring 10 acres and took all crop yielding measures iromn time to time and also applied fertilizers and pesticides in required quantity by spending huge amount. To his surprise, though the germination and growth of the plant was normal, there is a reduced seize of seeds which caused huge loss and he could not get any yield.
4) In fact, the duration of the crop is 100 to 120 days and even after the said duration there was no yield. In the previous year, Complainant got yield of 10 quintals per acre and with that hope he purchased the same variety of seed He incurred Rs.20,000/- per acre towards labour charges, purchase of seeds, purchase of fertilizers and pesticides and other incidental charges. The market value of soyabean seed of said variety in the market is Rs.4,000/- per quintal. He complained the same to concerned authorities who inspected the field and assessed the loss opining that the loss was due to supply of defective quantity of seeds. Hence the complaint with a prayer to direct the Opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- towards crop loss; Rs.20,000/- towards incidental charges and damages of Rs.20,000/- for supply of defective seed, together with costs of the complaint.
5) Opposite party No.1 appeared in person on behalf of Opposite parties and filed a letter in the form of counter contending that the loss of yield is due to weather conditions prevalent at that particular point of time but not due to seed quality.
6) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the Complainant filed his affidavit evidence as PW1 and got marked the documents Ex.Al to A6.
7) The District Forum after considering the material available on record, allowed the complaint bearing CC No.93 of 2016 by orders dated 23.05.2018, as stated supra, at paragraph No.l
8) Aggrieved by the above orders, the Appellants/Opposite parties preferred this appeal contending that the forum below failed to consider the fact that the seeds purchased were for commercial purpose, hence, do not fall under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act and the fact that the Complainant is not a 'consumer as defined under the Act. It also failed to consider the fact that the Appellants are resellers and not manufacturers nor producer of the seeds in question, hence, no liability can be fastened on them.
Further, the complaint is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties. Moreover, the yield depends on multiple factors which include weather conditions.
Surprisingly, no reasons were assigned by the forum below for allowing the complaint. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the orders impugned.
9) The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief ?
10) This appeal is directed against the orders of the District Forum, Adilabad in CC No.93/2016 dated 23.05.2018 by and under which, the District Commission has directed the Appellants/Opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest thereon@ 9% p.a. towards compensation; Rs. 10,000/- towards incidental charges and Rs.10,000/- damages and costs of Rs.1,000/
11) The District Forum, vide impugned order has allowed the complaint by an order which is worth extracting. Except for the portion that is extracted hereunder, the order of the Forum below does not contain any other reasoning. The entire order of the District Forum from paragraph-5 onwards reads as under:
A "Findings and conclusions the documents the
5.
This Hon'ble Forum after perusing complaint copy the counter frame the follouwing issues:
Whether the seeds uwere defective ?
b) Whether the compensation is reasonableP This Hon'ble Forum comes to conchusion after perusing the exhibits and the report and exhibits filed before this Hon'ble Porum specially report of experts evidently prove that the seeds are faulty. Issue (a) answered.
This Hon'ble Forum after much thought and observation the prayer of the complaint reasoned out to be exemplary hence not inclined to grant relief of that extent as prayed for in the complaint. Issue (b) answered too."
12) Even, at the cost of repetition, it may be stated that no other
reasons assigned by the District Forum except for
are the portion
mentioned above.
13) The authorities constituted under the Consumer Protection Act are to dispose of the matters in a summary nature. That does not mean that an order can be disposed of which is a judicial order in the manner in which it has been done by the learned District Forum, Adilabad. Brevity and precision are no doubt the requirements of a good Judgment but not to the extent that has been resorted to by the learned President of the District Forum at Adilabad. The order is expected to spell-out brief reasons so as to ascertain as to what prevailed upon the mind of the Court in granting the relief and such reasoning should be decipherable not only to any Appellate Court but even to the parties to the litigation who many a times as in the present case, will not even be knowing about the niceties of law. We do not find that the impugned order meets any of the requirements which are necessary for a Judgment to be called a Judgment. Therefore, we have no option except to remand the matter back to the District Forum with a direction to dispose of the same expeditiously for which both the parties who are present are directed to cooperate in the matter. It is noticed in the record that the Appellants/ Opposite parties have not filed the written version as is required but only filed a letter in the shape of counter and since that is not proper, reasonable opportunity be afforded to both parties to file their pleadings, written version and the oral and documentary evidence and thereafter the District Forum shall dispose of the matter on merits.
5is set
14) the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order aside. The matter is remanded back to the District Forum to dispose o date of tne consumer complaint within a period of three months from the receipt of the records after affording opportunity to the Appellants/ file Opposite parties to file their written version and both the parties to their oral and documentary evidence. The Registry is directed to see that the record reaches the District Forum, Adilabad o n or before 15.09.2022 and both the parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 19.09.2022. However, in the circumstances of the case, the parties to bear their own costs in this appeal.