Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

          Considering the documents and affidavits placed on record, District Consumer Forum gave finding that the tissue culture plants supplied by the Company were defective in nature.  In arriving this finding, the District Consumer Forum exclusively relied upon the report of expert, who had made spot inspection by going to the field of the complainant.  District Consumer Forum, therefore, allowed the complaint partly as mentioned in the opening para of this judgement.  Aggrieved by the said judgement and award, opponent/Company had filed this appeal.
          We heard Mr.U.B. Wavikar, Advocate for the appellant/Company and Mr.A.V. Patwardhan, Advocate for the respondent/complainant.
          We have perused the impugned award.  We have also perused the documents on record.  We are of the view that the Learned District Consumer Forum has ignored the fact that no expert from the Committee which had visited the field of the complainant and seen the standing plants grown in the field had filed affidavits.  Mr.Wavikar, Advocate for the appellant specifically brought to our notice a fact that the Honble National Commission in the case of M/s.Nath Royal Ltd. V/s. Basavaraj Shivabasappa Betageri & Anr. decided on 02/12/2008, held that the District Consumer Forum should not have ignored the fact that there was no affidavit of any expert filed by the complainant in support of his contention that the seeds supplied by the Company were defective.  It was observed by the Honble National Commission in its judgement that the respondent produced a report of the Assistant Director, Horticulture which disclosed that there was no proper formation of bulbs due to defect in the seeds but his report was not supported by an affidavit.  The witnesses to the Panchanama prepared at the site, also did not file any affidavit.
           In the light of these observations of the Honble National Commission, we are of the view that in the instant case also it was duty of the complainant to produce affidavit of some of the experts who had visited the field of the complainant and the affidavit of Panchas should have been placed on record in respect of tissue culture plants supplied by the appellant/Company to prove that they were defective in nature.  In that context, without any such affidavit coming in favour of the complainant, it is not possible for us to decide the moot question as to whether the appellant/Company had supplied defective tissue culture plants.  For this purpose, we are required to set aside the order passed by the District Consumer Forum to remand the complaint back to the District Consumer Forum.  District Consumer Forum has not given any reason as to why it had arrived at a particular figure of compensation.  There is no basis whatsoever discussed in the reasoning part of the judgement as to why amount of `97,650/- was being awarded to the complainant.  Amount of compensation should be awarded on some valid ground with proper justification.  Simply because the complainant had asked for compensation of `97,650/- the District Consumer Forum by a stroke of pen should not have awarded compensation without any justification.  It is also to be borne in mind that the complainant had not proved in the course of proceeding in the District Consumer Forum that it had in toto complying with the directions issued by the appellant/Company while supplying tissue culture plants to the complainant.  It is the case of the appellant that while supplying tissue culture plants they have given detailed brochure and it is their claim that if the complainant would have followed brochure in toto, the result would have been otherwise.  In the circumstances, District Consumer Forum is also required to tell the complainant to adduce proper evidence in that behalf in support of his case.  In the circumstances, we are inclined to allow this appeal to give second inning to both the parties to adduce evidence as suggested above in the District Consumer Forum and we direct District Consumer Forum to decide the complaint afresh on remand giving full opportunity to both the parties to adduce their respective evidence.  Hence, we pass the following order :-
                             -: ORDER :-
1.    

Appeal is allowed.  The impugned order dated 16/03/2009 is quashed and set aside.

2.     Complaint No.167/2005 stands remitted back to the District Consumer Forum, Kolhapur. 

3.     District Consumer Forum is directed to allow both the parties to adduce such other evidence as they want to adduce and then decide the complaint on merits in the light of observations made by this Commission in this judgement.