National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S United Phosphorus Limited vs Ranbir Singh And Anr. on 28 May, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION No. 4545 OF 2009 (From the order dated 10.03.2009 in R.B.T no. 1551/2008/ First Appeal no. 908 of 2002of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh) M/s United Phosphorus Limited UNIPHOS House, Madhu Park Petitioner 11th Road, Khar (West) Mumbai 400 052, Maharashtra versus 1. Ranbir Singh, son of Prayag Singh Resident of Village Barowali Tehsil and District Fatehabad, Haryana 2. M/s Badopalia Chemicals Respondents Pesticides and Fertilisers Distributors Shop no. 74, Anaj Mandi, Fatehabad District Fatehabad, Haryana REVISION PETITION No. 4546 OF 2009 (From the order dated 10.03.2009 in R.B.T no. 1459/2008/First Appeal no. 909 of 2002 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh) M/s United Phosphorus Limited UNIPHOS House, Madhu Park Petitioner 11th Road, Khar (West) Mumbai 400 052, Maharashtra versus 1. Prayag Singh Resident of Village Barowali Tehsil and District Fatehabad, Haryana 2. M/s Badopalia Chemicals Respondents Pesticides and Fertilisers Distributors Shop no. 74, Anaj Mandi, Fatehabad District Fatehabad, Haryana BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.ANUPAM DASGUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER For the Petitioner Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Advocate For the Respondents Mr. T. C. Gupta, Advocate for R 1 Mr. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate for R 2 Pronounced on 28th May, 2012 ORDER
ANUPAM DASGUPTA The petitioner in these two revision petitions (M/s United Phosphorus Limited UPL)) is a manufacturer of chemicals, including pesticides. Respondent no. 2 in both the petitions, M/s Badopalia Chemicals (BC) is a distributor of pesticides and fertilisers (including those manufactured by UPL), whereas respondent no. 1 in both these petitions is a farmer of Fatehabad District, Haryana. In fact, respondent no. 1 in RP no. 4545 of 2009 (Ranbir Singh) is the son of respondent no. 1 (Prayag Singh) in RP no. 4546 of 2009. Incidentally, both the revision petitions have been filed after a delay of 183 days.
2. Respondent no. 2 in these revision petitions, viz., BC had also filed revision petitions no. 2083 and 2084 of 2009 with Prayag Singh and Ranbir Singh respectively as respondents no. 1 and UCL as respondent no. 2.
3. All these four revision petitions are directed against the order dated 10.03.2009 in appeals no. 908 and 909 of 2002 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh (in short, the State Commission). Appeal no. 908 of 2002 had been filed by Ranbir Singh whereas appeal no. 909 of 2002 had been filed by Prayag Singh. Both these appeals, in turn, were against the order dated 25.03.2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehabad (in short, the District Forum) in complaint cases no. 303 and 305 of 2000 filed by Ranbir Singh and Prayag Singh respectively. The complainants had purchased some pesticide manufactured by UCL and marketed locally by BC. They alleged that the pesticide they bought was defective and hence damaged their cotton crop on which it was sprayed. The allegations were contested by both UCL and BC. The District Forum agreed with their defence and dismissed the complaints. By its impugned orders, the State Commission, however, set aside the dismissal of the complaints and awarded some compensation to the appellants/complainants. The orders are identically worded except in respect of the names of the respondents/complainants.
4. It is seen that RP no. 2083 and 2084 of 2009 were disposed of by an order dated 20.10.2009 of this Commission. It is necessary to read that order:
Heard Counsel for the parties. In so far as respondent no. 2 is concerned, respondent no. 2 has not challenged the orders of the State Commission and as such qua respondent no. 2, namely, the manufacturer, the order of the State Commission has attained finality and no further order is required to be passed in respect of the same. Respondent no. 2 has been held to be jointly and severally liable to pay the amount as ordered in the impugned order of the State Commission.
In so far as the petitioner and respondent no. 1 are concerned, they have entered into a settlement as per terms signed and annexed with this order.
Learned counsel for the respondent Prayag Singh in revision petition no. 2083 of 2009 is agreeable to settle the matter for a lump sum of Rs.40,00/- as against the present petitioner which is agreed by the petitioner. The said sum will be payable within a period of six weeks, failing which it shall carry 10% interest from the date of the impugned order.
Likewise, in revision petition no. 2084 of 2009, learned counsel for the respondent is agreeable to settle the matter for a lump sum of Rs.15,000/- as against the present petitioner which is agreed by the petitioner. The said sum will be payable within a period of six weeks, failing which it shall carry 10% interest from the date of the impugned order.
The primary liability is that of the manufacturer and the petitioner is at liberty to recover the said amount from the manufacturer in case the same is recovered from him, by filing an execution before the District Forum The revisions stand disposed of in terms of the said settlement with no order as to costs.
STATEMENT OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES The total lump-sum compensation payable to the respondent Prayag Singh in RP no. 2083 of 2009 has been settled by the parties to be Rs.40,000/- to be payable by the petitioner. M/s Badopalia Chemicals within a period of six weeks, failing which the petitioner shall have to pay interest @ 10% from the date of this order.
Likewise, in the case of Ranbir Singh in RP no. 2084 of 2009, the parties have settled the dispute by payment of lump-sum compensation of Rs.15,000/- which shall be payable the petitioner M/s Badopalia Chemicals within a period of six weeks, failing which the petitioner shall have to pay interest @ 10% from the date of this order.
It will be clear from this order that the disputes were amicably resolved and the claims were settled for the amounts mentioned in the aforesaid order. UPL too was duly represented in these petitions by an advocate (Mr. Abhinav Bajaj) who had also signed the statement recorded by the Bench.
5. It is further seen that a review application (no. 17 and 18 of 2010) was filed by Shri Rajesh Pathak, Counsel for UPL seeking review of the order dated 20.10.2009, reproduced above. This review application was also dismissed by an order dated 10.02.2010 of this Commission. This order reads:
The review application were placed by circulation in terms of Regulation 15 (2) of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 before us since one of the Members who had passed the order dated 20.10.2009, namely, P. D. Shenoy, Member, which is sought to be reviewed, has since relinquished charge on completion of his term of appointment.
We have gone through the review applications, condonation application filed along with it and the record of revision petitions. There is a delay of 60 days in filing the condonation application. Explanation given is that delay was caused from 20.10.2009 to 15.11.2009 for obtaining certified copy, time taken in conducting inspection and verifying details from the records and on account of engaging a Counsel. The impugned order in question was passed in the presence of Counsel of present applicant who was respondent no. 2 in revision petitions. Thus, it is to be presumed that respondent no. 2 was aware of the said order and as such, there was no need to wait for the certified copy and the review applications could be filed within time by seeking execution for filing certified copy of order dated 20.10.2009. The applicant had already engaged counsel who had appeared on 20.10.2009 and the ground that time was taken to engage counsel cannot be accepted. The certified copy of order dated 20.10.2009 filed on record shows that it was ready on 10.11.2009. How much time was taken to inspect records is not disclosed. In our opinion, there is no sufficient cause for delay in filing the review applications by 60 days. The review applications are liable to be dismissed on this count alone.
Even on merits, we do not find that any case has been made out for review. The ground for review is that the Counsel for the applicant failed to inform the Commission on 20.10.2009 the reasons for not challenging the order of the State Commission inasmuch as the applicant had not been served with notice in respect of appeals filed before the State Commission and had no knowledge of the order dated 10.03.2009 passed by the State Commission. This plea of the applicant cannot be considered in the review applications. The said plea is on merits of the matter and it is now well settled that review is not an appeal in disguise. The applicant has not been able to show any error apparent on the face of the record for justifying review. It appears that the applicants have filed revision petitions subsequently challenging order dated 10.03.2009 of the State Commission along with applications for condonation of delay. Be that as it may, we do not find that any case has been made out so as to justify review.
For the aforesaid reasons, review applications are dismissed with no order as to cost.
6. During hearing of these petitions, this position was pointedly brought to the notice of Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Advocate who had represented UPL earlier too and he was asked to seek instructions of the petitioner if it would like to withdraw these two revision petitions in view of the finality of the order dated 20.10.2009 to which the petitioner (UCL) was very much a party. However, Mr. Pathak stated that tough he had written to the petitioner to seek instructions, he had not received any.
7. In view of the foregoing, both the revision petitions are dismissed, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- by the petitioner to respondent no. 1 in each case and also depositing Rs.5,000/- with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the Commission in each case, within four weeks of the date of this order.
sd/-
....
[Anupam Dasgupta] satish