State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1.The Branch Manager Hyderabad ... vs G. Shivaiah, on 19 August, 2022
1
Before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
(under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019) of Telangana,
Eruvaka Building, Khai rathabad, Hyderabad - 500 004
FA NO.248 OF 2018 AGAINST cC NO,94 OF 2016
ON THE 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
G.Shivaiah S/o Chinnu,
aged about 68 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 Porum, Adilabad in cc No.94/2016 in allowing the complaint in part and directing the Opposite parties therein to pay compensation of Rs.66,500/- 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/- an costs of Rs. 1,000/-, granting time of four weeks for compliance.
2For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed
2) in the complaint.
3) Tne case of the Complainant, in brief, is that he is an agriculturist having lands at Karanji sivar of Tamsi mandal, Adilabad district bearing Sy.No.38/A to an extent of Ac.3.13 guntas and cultivating the same since long. He 1s having experience in raising soyabeen crop. He purchased bags of soya bean seed from Opposite party No.1 vide bill No.192217 dated 11.06.2015 for a consideration of Rs.10,500/- @ 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 3.13 acres and took all crop yielding measures from 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 seey. 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. 1,33,000/- towards crop loss; Rs.20,000/- towards incidental charges and damages of Rs.20,000/- for supply of defective seed, togethe 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.
During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to
6) affidavit evidence as PW1 and prove his case, the Complainant filed his got marked the documents Ex.Al to A6.
Tne District Forum after considering the material available on
7) record, allowed the complaint bearing CC No.94 of 2016 by orders dated 23.05.2018, as stated supra, at paragraph No.1.
8) Aggrieved by the above orders, the Appellants/Opposite parties to consider preterred this appeal contending that the forum below failed hence, the fact that the seeds purchased were for commercial purpose, do not fall under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act and the fact that under the Act. It also the Complainant is not a consumer' as defined are resellers and not failed to consider the fact that the Appellants hence, no liability manufacturers nor producer of the seeds in question, can be fastened on them. Further, the complaint is bad for non-joinder Moreover, the yield depends on multiple of proper and necessary parties.
no r e a s o n s were factors which include weather conditions. Surprisingly, Hence, prayed assigned by the forum below for allowing the complaint.
to allow the appeal by setting aside the orders impugned.
is whether the impugned
9) The point that arises for consideration error or order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any interfered to be set aside, modified or irregularity or whether it is liable relief?
with, in any manner? To what orders of the District Forum,
10) This appeal is directed against the 23.05.2018 by and under which, the Adilabad in CC No.94/2016 dated parties to pay District Commission has directed the Appellants/Opposite 9% p.a. towards a sum of Rs.66,500/- with interest thereon@ incidental charges and Rs.10,000/-
compensation; Rs.10,000/- towards damages and costs of Rs. 1,000/-.
order has allowed the
The District Forum, vide impugned
11)
worth extracting. Except for the portion
complaint by a n order which is
the order of the Forum below does not
that is extracted hereunder,
entire order of the District Forum from contain any other reasoning. The reads a s under:
paragraph-5 onwards "Findings and conclusions:
documents the
5. This Hon 'ble Forum after perusing the the following issues:
complaint copy the counter frame a Whether the seeds w e r e defective ?
A ?
b) Whether the compensation is reasonable This Hon'ble Forum comes to conclusion after perusing the exhibits and the report and exhibits filed beföre this that Hon'ble Forum specially report of experts evidently prove 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."
12) Even, at the cost of repetition, it may be stated that no other reasons are assigned by the District Forum except for 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.
14) In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the District Forum to dispose of the consumer complaint within a period of three months from the date of 5 receipt of the records after affording opportunity to the Appellants/ to file Opposite parties to file their written version and both the parties to s e e that their oral and documentary evidence. The Registry is directed 15.09.2022 the record reaches the District Forum, Adilabad o n or before and both the parties a r e 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.