State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Vigneshwara Hybrid Seeds Company vs Sagar Ambar Sonwane on 20 February, 2026
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
SECOND APPEAL NO. NC/SA/696/2025
(Against the Order dated 10th October 2024 in Appeal No. SC/CB2/27/A/168/2023 of the State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Circuit bench nagpur)
WITH
NC/IA/9471/2025 (FOR GRANT OF STAY)
VIGNESHWARA HYBRID SEEDS COMPANY
BUSINESS ADDRESS - GATTUDDENPALLY MANAKODUR. MANAKONDUR MANDAL
KARIMNAGAR , KARIMNAGAR,TELANGANA.
.......Petitioner(s)
Versus
SAGAR AMBAR SONWANE
BUSINESS ADDRESS - BIROLI , TIRORATIRORA , GONDIA,MAHARASHTRA.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. P. SAHI , PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA , MEMBER
FOR THE PETITIONER:
FOR APPELLANTS : MR. PRAMOD AGARWAL, ADVOCATE
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
FOR RESPONDENT : MR. AVINASH PRABHUNE, ADVOCATE
DATED: 20/02/2026
ORDER
1. The present appeal had been entertained keeping in view the peculiar nature of the order that was passed by the State Commission which prima-facie gave rise to substantial questions as recorded in our order dated 26.08.2025 extracted hereinunder:
This compilation was presented as a revision petition in the background that the complainant had earlier filed an Appeal (S.A. No.1 of 2025) under Section 51 (2) before this Commission that was permitted to be withdrawn for instituting appropriate proceedings. The order passed by this Commission on 21.02.2025 is extracted herein under: -
"Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
Essentially the matter pertains to dismissal of the appeal filed by the appellant. After brief arguments, the learned counsel for the Appellant seeks to withdraw SA/1/2025, with liberty to file appropriate proceedings before this Commission. Allowed.
Second Appeal No.1 of 2025 is dismissed as withdrawn."
It would be appropriate to mention that the proceedings arise out of a challenge raised to the order passed by the SCDRC dated 10th October, 2024. The order is extracted herein under: -
Appellant and advocate absent. Mr. Mishrikotkar, advocate is present for the respondent. Record shows that the respondent has filed pursis dated 04/09/2024 and submitted that the instant appeal is prima facie not maintainable being filed against two orders passed in different proceedings and on different dates jointly/composite. On 24/06/2024 the respondent filed an application for dismissal of instant appeal being barred by limitation with punitive cost. The order/judgment was passed on 06/04/2023. The appellant received the certified copy of final order in Consumer Complaint No. CC/133/2022 on 20/04/2023. Hence, instant appeal would have filed within 45 days from that date but it is filed on 21/08/2023. So there is delay of more than 70 days and there is no application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. We have gone through the impugned order and application, it is very much clear from the bare reading of Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 ie, appeal against the order of District Consumer Commission. Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Consumer may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Consumer Commission on the grounds of facts or law within a period of forty five days from the date of the order, in such form and manner, as may be prescribed, provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of forty five days, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period. Herein the order/judgment was passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Gondia on 06/04/2023 and certified copy was received on 20/04/2023 and appeal was filed on 21/08/2023. The record shows that more particularly the order sheet dated 24/06/2024 that when the advocate for the respondent has raised objection regarding, filing of the appeal without application for condonation of delay in presence of the advocate for the appellant. Hence, this Commission has granted liberty to file application to that effect to the appellant but till today the appellant has not filed any application for condonation of delay, for filing the appeal against the order dated 06/04/2023 passed in Consumer Complaint No. CC/133/2022. It is crystal clear that though the ample of time is given to the appellant to file an application for condonation of delay but not steps have been taken by the appellant, so the appeal against the order dated 06/04/2023 is hereby dismissed as appeal is barred by limitation. But we find that the appeal which was filed against the order dated 10/07/2023 in Review Application No. RA/23/5 arising out of order dated 06/04/2023 and this appeal is filed on 21/08/2023 which is very much within the period of limitation. Hence, this appeal against the order dated 10/07/2023 passed in Review Application No. RA/23/5 is hereby admitted. Issue notice after admission to the respondent returnable on 21/11/2024. Appellant to serve the respondent and file copy of postal receipt and track report on record."
The proceedings in Appeal had been instituted being aggrieved by the order of the District Commission in CC/133/2022 decided on 06.04.2023. The complaint was partly allowed for a payment of Rs.1,62,390/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost to be paid within 15 days. The complaint had been filed alleging deficiency in service for the loss and failure of crops that was an outcome of supply of sub-standard seeds by the opposite parties. It is this dispute relating to the deficiency in service that was finally disposed of by the District Commission and the Seed Company, against whom the decree had been passed, instituted FA/168/2023.
It may be pointed out that a review application had also been filed being RA/5/2023 before the District Commission that was also dismissed. The appeal also challenged the order passed on the review application dated 10th July, 2023.
Consequently the main order allowing the complaint on 6th April, 2023 as well as the order passed on the review application on 10th July, 2023, both were challenged in the same appeal before the State Commission.
The State Commission by the impugned order dismissed the appeal raising a challenge to the main order dated 6th April, 2023 but has simultaneously admitted the appeal against the order dated 10th July, 2023 passed on the review application No.5/2023.
We find this to be a very peculiar type of order, inasmuch as, once the appeal filed against the main order stands dismissed, it would be difficult to comprehend a challenge to the order passed on the review application regarding the same order. It would be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Apex Court by a Three Member Bench in the case of T.K. David vs. Kuruppampady Services Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Ors. (2020) 9 SCC 92 paragraphs 13-18. The different situations relating to orders being passed on review have been discussed in paragraph-14 of the said order and it has been noticed that once the basic judgment is not challenged and it is only the order of review which has been assailed, then there is no ground made out for entertaining such an appeal.
In the instant case the facts are, even though slightly different, but the fact remains that the challenge to the order passed on the review application cannot survive once the original order is allowed to stand. There cannot be two inconsistent decrees in the same case. In the present case the State Commission has dismissed the challenge against the original order but has strangely enough entertained and admitted the appeal against the review order. This order by itself raises a substantial question of law.
Learned counsel has moved an application submitting that the substantial questions as framed by him should be entertained and the present petition should be treated to be an Appeal in terms of Section 51 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
In view of the submissions raised, we are satisfied that the remedy of the petitioner lies in moving an Appeal under Section 51 (2) of the 2019 Act and we accordingly allow this Revision petition to be converted into an Appeal under Section 51 (2) of the 2019 Act.
We may point out that the order dated 21.02.2025 passed by this Commission grants liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings and the same was allowed to be withdrawn. The said decision therefore is not an impediment in the institution of this compilation as a Second Appeal. Consequently the Registry shall register this Appeal as a Second Appeal and give it a regular number.
The appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law: -
(1) Whether the State Commission was justified in proceeding to reject the appeal against the impugned order dated 06.04.2023 and fell into error by simultaneously admitting the same appeal against the order passed on review application, keeping in view the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of T.K. David (supra)?
(2) Whether the State Commission has erroneously proceeded to dismiss the Appeal on the ground of limitation keeping in view the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 without giving an opportunity to the Appellant to move an application seeking delay condonation?
(3) Whether the issue of Coram would arise keeping in view the fact that the appointment of the Members who had decided the matter was held to be invalid upto the Apex Court and consequently whether the impugned order could be sustained on that ground or not keeping in view the Defacto doctrine in respect of orders passed in good faith?
Let notice issue to the respondent calling upon him to answer this Appeal. IA/9471/2025 (STAY) The Appellant has moved an application for grant of stay and in the said application in paragraph-3 it has been stated that the Appellant has deposited 100% of the decretal amount before the District Commission in compliance of the order passed by the District Commission.
Subject to any further orders and the outcome of this Revision petition, the respondent shall be permitted to seek release of 50% of the amount deposited by the Petitioner and the balance 50% shall be retained with the District Commission. Accordingly, further execution proceedings shall remain stayed.
List on 05.1.2026.
2. The matter was again taken up on 05.01.2026 when the following order was passed:
Heard learned counsel for the parties. After we had heard the matter at length and examined the issues, we find that it would be more appropriate if the parties arrive at a settlement amongst themselves and intimate this Commission by the next date fixed.
Let the matter be listed on 20.02.2026.
3. Today, when the matter was taken up, and upon hearing the learned counsel, we find that under the interim order dated 26.08.2025 quoted above, 50% of the amount that was deposited by the petitioner has already been released to the respondent complainant as admitted by his counsel. On the matter proceeding further, learned counsel for the respondent agreed that the dispute may be settled by releasing 70% of the amount in favour of the complainant, to which the learned counsel for the appellant urged that he had instructions to offer only 40%. On the basis of these submissions, we find it expedient to settle the matter finally instead of dragging this litigation by directing that the respondent would be entitled to 50% of the amount which already stands released to him. This we have done keeping in view the background of the case where the dispute related to purchase of 10 bags of hybrid seeds for a sum of Rs. 6,000/- which were alleged to be defective.
4. The initial claim in the legal notice was for a sum of Rs. 1,86,000/- alleging losses which was later on enhanced by the complainant to Rs. 2,61,000/-. The District Commission relied on the Taluka Krishi Adhikari report, which reflected the supply of low quality of seeds. Relying on the report of the Redressal Committee, the complaint had been allowed. The seeds were to be utilized for being sown over a small plot of 1.60 hectares. The total calculation made by the District Commission was on an estimated loss of 76 quintals which was possibly an optimum yield. In our opinion, the said proportion could have been estimated on an average and therefore from that point of view, since the learned counsel for both the parties had substantially modulated and reduced their claims as recorded above, we find it expedient to strike a balance by extending the benefit of 50% of the amount awarded that has already been disbursed to the respondent.
5. The appellant has deposited the entire decretal amount and therefore the District Commission, Gondia shall accordingly proceed to refund the balance of the amount to the appellant as it is admitted that 50% of the amount has already been released to the complainant - respondent. The appeal stands disposed off and the impugned orders passed by the State Commission as well as by the District Commission on the peculiar facts of this case shall stand substituted accordingly.
..................J A. P. SAHI PRESIDENT ..................
BHARATKUMAR PANDYA MEMBER PRAMOD SINGH MEHTA/Court-1/10