National Consumer Disputes Redressal
South Eastern Seeds Corporation vs R. Shekhar @ Sridhar on 29 October, 2007
Equivalent citations: I(2008)CPJ158(NC)
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.
2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased paddy seeds of THCS as also the 'Bhindi' and 'Tomato' Seeds from the Rythu Depot (O.P. No. 1 before the District Forum), a distributor of the petitioner company. Seeds were sown by the complainant in his fields. As far as paddy seeds are concerned, it reached maturity within 45 days, thus affecting the yield as, normally, the maturity period is 90 days. The matter was taken up with the petitioner as also with the District Agricutural Authorities. The field was inspected by the Mandal Agricultural Officer, who reported that the pre-maturity of the paddy seeds is on account of the defect in seeds, which has resulted in unsatisfatory formation of the grain. When the matter was not getting settled between theparties,acomplaintwas filed before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by that order an appeal was filed before the State Commission, who allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 20,000 being the cost of the lost paddy crop along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till the realisation and cost of Rs. 2,000. Aggrieved by that order, this revision petition has been filed before us.
3. We heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. We have very carefully gone through the cross-examination of Mr. B. Rama Rao, Seed Certification Officer, and in his cross-examination he clearly stated, "I do not know to whom the seeds certified by me under Ex. B1 are sold by the South Eastern Seeds Corporation, Nizamabad". In our view, that does not help the case of the petitioner at all.
4. On the contrary, the report of the Agricultural Officer, which remains unrebutted is categorical, that pre-maturity of paddy seeds is on account of defective seeds, which remains unrebutted.
5. A very untenable plea has been taken before us by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the procedure under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, has not been adopted by the lower Fora in gettig the seeds tested. We have held in catena of judgments that, a farmer cannot be expected to retain any part of high value seed to get it tested in case of unforseen contingency like the one we are facing in the case. The learned Counsel for the petitioner was unable to satisfy us as to why the petitioners could not get the seeds tested especially when the lot number (15964) is available on the record. They being the seed producer would always have some quantity of seed left with them and which they could have got tested and brought before us. It is their failure to perform, that has to be held against them.
In the aforementioned circumstances, we see no merit in this revision petition, hence the revision petition is dismissed.