PHI SEEDS LTD Vs. RAGHUNATHA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revisions arise out of common order dated 27.5.2009 passed by the State Commission in various appeals. Accordingly the revisions were heard altogether at the admission stage. Delay in filing the revisions which is not much is condoned.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners was heard in all the revisions. He submitted before me that the Fora below have not considered the Seeds and Analysis Report of PHI Seeds Ltd. that in terms of Section 2(l)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 defect would mean any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potentiality, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners the said standards are required to be maintained under the Seeds Act, 1966 and the Seeds Rules, 1968. In this connection my attention has been drawn to Section 6 of the Seeds Act, 1966 which deals with power to specify minimum limits of germination and purity, etc. and Rule-6 of the said Rules which deals with functions of certification agency. It has also been pointed out that in order to award compensation for loss or injury suffered by the consumer, negligence has to be proved against the opposite party in terms of Section 14(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has also relied upon certain rulings, which are strictly not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.

(3.) The revisions are directed against concurrent findings of two Fora below. The findings of Fora below are based upon report of the Senior Scientist, who had inspected the fields in question where the seeds were sown. According to the complainants, the normal yield per acre should be 10 quintals but the yield was poor and it Was only 2 quintals per acre. Complainants had therefore filed complaints for compensation. The report of the Senior Scientist is as follows: