SYNGENTA INDIA LTD Vs. VELAGA NARASIMHA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal challenges the order dated 15.04.2005 of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, 'the State Commission') in complaint case no.2 of 2001. By the said order, the State Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed all the opposite parties (M/s Novartis India Ltd. (Seeds Sector), Pune, M/s Balakrishna Distributing Company, Khammam and M/s Rama Hybrid Seeds Corporation, Khammam) guilty of deficiency in service in supplying Roshni chilli seeds to the complainant and awarded a compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- towards expenses and crop loss along with cost of Rs.5,000/-, payable within six weeks from the date of the order, with the further stipulation that failure to do so would entitle the complainant to interest on the said amount @ 9% per annum till payment. Aggrieved by this order, M/s Syngenta India Limited (successor-in-interest of M/s Novartis India Ltd.) has filed the present appeal.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Vikram Dhokalia, learned counsel for the appellant but did not have the opportunity of hearing the respondents (particularly respondent no.1, the complainant before the State Commission) as none was present on behalf of respondent no.1 on the date of hearing despite notice. In fact, by this Commission's order dated 28.11.2006, respondents no. 2 and 3 were directed to be proceeded against ex parte. Still, a second opportunity was given to respondent no. 3 by our order dated 04.11.2009 and the notices for both respondents no. 1 and 3 were handed over to the appellant's counsel for effecting service and also sent by registered post. Notices sent by registered post were not returned unserved and hence service would have to be presumed.

(3.) The facts leading to the complaint have been recorded in detail by the State Commission in its impugned order and need not be recapitulated here. However, we may notice that the finding of the State Commission holding the opposite parties guilty of deficiency in service in respect of the Roshni variety of chilli seeds produced and marketed by the appellant and bought by the complainant from the dealers (opposite parties no. 2 and 3) was based entirely on a field visit report dated 17.01.2001 of one Mr. J. N. Bavaji, Senior Scientist, (Chillies) and Dr. Khalid Ahmed, Senior Scientist (Entomology) Regional Agricultural Research Station (RARS), Lam, Guntur. According to this report, the two scientists had visited the farms of the complainant as well as some other farmers in Khammam Rural Mandal and Bonakal Mandal. In respect of the field of the complainant, the following observations were made in the report: