SHRI RAMA ENTERPRISES Vs. VENKAT REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioners were the opposite parties before the District Forum where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency on the part of the petitioners.

(2.) Facts leading to the filing of the complaint were that the complainant Venkat Reddy had purchased 'chilly' seeds from the petitioners in 1996, had sown them in June, 1996. Not seeing any yield in November, 1996 the complainant approached the petitioners to send someone to inspect the field - the petitioners asked him to wait for some more time and asked to spray pesticides; when this did not give the desired result, petitioners were approached again but to no effect. Field of the complainant was visited by the Agriculture Officer and was satisfied that it is the quality of seed which is responsible for the state of affairs. When the petitioners did not react to request of the complainant, a complaint came to be filed by two complainants, Venkat Reddy and his father in law, Sudhakar Reddy, who claim to use the seed in a joint holding of 3 acres. The District Forum after hearing the parties held the petitioners to be deficient in service and directed return of Rs. 2,300/- i.e. the cost of seeds, Rs. 13,000/- towards expenses incurred and Rs. 1,000/- as costs to 1st complainant. The complainant No. 2 was not awarded anything on the ground that he had not purchased any seed from the petitioners. Aggrieved by the order, petitioners filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the State Commission, hence this revision petition.

(3.) The only point argued before us relates to not following the procedure laid down under Section 13(1)(c) of C.P. Act, 1986. In similar cases, on similar point being raised by the seed companies, we have held :