National Consumer Disputes Redressal
N.S.C. Ltd. vs Guruswamy And Anr. on 3 August, 2001
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner against the order of Karnataka State Commission sustaining the order of the District Forum, Mandya.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Respondent/Complainant purchased 1.4 Kgs. of Watermelon seed of 'Arkajyothi' and sowed it in the presence of Agriculture Officer, invested money for fertilizers and other agri inputs, but since the crop did not appear to be satisfactory, the complainant consulted the local agricultural authorities, who told him that the crop output is of 'Sugar Baby' variety of Watermelon and not of 'Arkahyothi'. Thus, was reported to the Petitioner by the Respondent/Complainant. Since no satisfactory reply was forthcoming from the Company. Respondent/Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Mandya, who by a majority judgements upheld the complaint and awarded relief. On appeal, case was remanded to the District Forum who after hearing both the parties and the expert evidence led before it, passed the order awarding Rs. 92,250/- for crop loss and Rs. 25,000/- as agricultural expenses and Rs. 1000/- as costs, thus, totalling Rs. 1,18,250/- along with interest @ 18% to the Respondent/Complainant. Appeal filed by the Petitioner resulted in partial modification of the order of the District Forum in as must as rate of interest was reduced to 12% but upholding other reliefs. It is against this order that Revision has been filed before us by the Petitioner.
3. The only point agitated before us by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner was the interpretation and application of Section 13 (c) of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA).
Section 13 (c) reads as under:-
"where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the appropriate laboratory along with a direction that such laboratory make an analysis or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect and to report its findings thereon to the District Forum within a period of forty-five days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the District Forum."
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that under the law, the District Forum should have sent the sample of the seed to the laboratory and having based their order on its finding and not adhering to the provisions of law is a illegality which was also not considered by the State Commission, hence, Both these orders are bad in law, hence, need to be set aside.
5. There is no doubt in our mind that where complainant alleges a defect in goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, then, the sample need to be taken and sent to a laboratory for analysis or test. But, the ground reality in the instant case is that reposing faith in the seller, in this case the leading Public Sector Company dealing in seed production and sale, the Petition sowed whole of the seed purchased by him. Where was the question of any sample seed to be sent to any laboratory in the case? Whatever the Respondent/Complainant had, was sown. One could have appreciated the bonafides better, if sample from the crop was taken during the visit of Assistant Seed Officer of Petitioner - N.S.C. and sent for analysis. Their failure is unexceptionable. In our view, it is the Petitioner Company which failed to comply with the provisions of Section 13 (c) of the Act. By the time, complainant could be filed even this opportunity had passed. If the Petitioner Company was little more sensitive or alert to the complaint of the Respondent/Complainant, this situation might not have arisen. Petitioner has to pay for his insensitivity. The Respondent/Complainant led evidence of State's agricultural authorities in support who made their statements after seeing the crop in the field. The onus passes on to the Petitioner to prove that the crop which grew in the field of the complainant was of 'Arkajyothi' of which the seed was sold and not of 'Sugar Baby', as alleged. He cannot take shelter under Section 13 (c) of the CP Act. Learned Counsel's plea that Respondent/Complainant should have kept portion of seeds purchased by him to be used for sampling purposes, is not only unsustainable in law but to say the least, is very unbecoming of a leading Public Sector Seed Company to expect this arrangement.
6. In the light of the above discussion, we find no merit in this Revision Petition, hence, dismissed with costs of Rs.2000/- besides the reliefs granted by the lower Fora.