BEJO SHEETAL SEEDS Vs. BOLLA VENKANNA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner - Producer of the seeds who is before us, was the opposite party No. 2 before the District Forum in the complaint. Complainant is the first respondent before us. His complaint was that he purchased seeds of water melon from the petitioner, but the seeds were defective with the result he could not get proper crop of water melon. Complainant alleged deficiency in service. Complaint was filed. In support of his complaint, complainant produced as many as three witnesses. One of whom was the Horticulture Officer who visited the fields and had found that the seeds were of inferior quality. Complainant claimed damages @ Rs. 12,500.00 per acre totalling Rs. 50,000.00 for four acres of his land. He also claimed cost of the proceedings. There was no dispute that the complainant did purchase seeds from the petitioner No evidence was produced by the petitioner to rebut the case set up by the complainant. District Forum after recording evidence and appreciating the case, allowed the complaint and directed that the opposite parties which include the petitioner, shall pay to the complainant Rs. 50,000.00 with interest @ 15% per annum from 2.5.94 when the complaint was filed. Complainant was also awarded Rs. 2,500.00 as costs.

(2.) Petitioner went in appeal before the State Commission. It was barred by 100 days of delay. On that ground appeal was dismissed. Nevertheless, the State Commission went into the merits of the controversy and after considering the whole aspect of the matter, upheld the order of the District Forum.

(3.) Aggrieved, petitioner has come before this Commission. It has been submitted before us that the procedure adopted by the District Forum was contrary to Sec. 13 of the Consumer Protection Act and the Seeds Act. Submission was that the seeds would have been sent for analysis. This could not be possible inasmuch as seeds purchased by the complainant had already been sown in the soil. It is too late in the day to test the seeds of its quality. In the present case, statement of Horticulture Officer who inspected the field along with Assistant Director, Horticulture, was recorded and they were of the opinion that the seeds were of defective quality. We do not think it is fit case for us to exercise our jurisdiction under clause (b) of Sec. 21 of the Consumer Protection Act. Revision petition is dismissed.