HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD Vs. NAMDEO BARIRAO RAUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order dated 11th November, 1992 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra in Complaint No. 213 of 1991. We do not want to go into the details of the facts of the case as we are of opinion that the case is to be remanded to the State Commission for fresh disposal on merits. Briefly stated that facts are that the complainant - Shri Namdeo Bajirao Raut wanted to grow cotton in his landHe purchased nine bags of 'Paras seeds' which are produced and marketed by the Appellant -Hindustan Lever Ltd. through its distributor M/s. Anant Krishi Sewa Kendra, respondent No. 2 in the present Appeal. The seeds were actually sold by the respondent No. 4 -Hingni Bagayatdar Krishak Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. The complainant sowed the said cotton seeds in an area of 12 acres in his field. He irrigated the cotton crop and also used insecticides and fertilisers to get the maximum yield of the product. According to the complainant the hybrid cotton crop normally starts giving cotton buds in about 45 days. But in his case even after two months after sowing, there were no buds appearing on the plants. To his surprise even after the maturity of plants the cotton plants did not show the signs of flowers and buds. He, therefore, made complaints to the Collector, Wardha, Agricultural Officer, Z.P., Wardha, Agricultural Officer, P.S. Sello, M/s. Anant Krishi Seva Kendra and Higni Bagayatdar Krishak Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. etc. by a common written complaint dated 4.4.90. The District Quality Inspector visited the fields of Complainant on 21st September, 1990 and acknowledged to have received the seeds for necessary inspection. Hindustan Lever Ltd. also responded by sending a letter dated 15th October, 1990 assuring the complainant to make enquiry into the matter. According to the complainant, Representative of the Hindustan Levers Ltd. visited the field of the complainant and assured him to compensate the loss due to failure of crops. The Controlling Authority of Zilla Parishad, Wardha is also said to have lodged a report to the Police Station at Sello on 25.10.90 under Section 4201.P.C. against M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. According to the complainant the seed sold were defective and as a result of which he had suffered huge losses. He, therefore, claimed Rs. 60,000/ - towards expenses for cultivation and Rs. 1,80,000/ - as compensation for the loss of crop. Sale of the seed was sought to be proved by the complainant by producing on record bills of purchase. M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. admitted that they have marketed the seeds in question.

(2.) IN evidence the complainant produced the report of the Agricultural Development Officer, Wardha in which he had stated that after personal verification, all the seeds in question were found with purity of seed at 12% in which female percentage was 75 and adulteration was found 13%. The yellow label attached with the bags of seeds showed the lot number and that the validity period was upto December, 1990. It was printed on the Yellow label that purity was minimum 98% and inert matter maximum 2%. Germination was stated to be minimum 65%. The complainant in support of his case also filed his affidavit as well as affidavits of two other persons about the costs of cultivation and about the fact that the seeds sown in the complainants filed was failure. The State Commission accepted the case of the complainant and ordered M/s. Hindustan Levers Ltd. to compensate the complainant for his loss of Rs. 66,840/ - within a period of 30 days. Feeling aggrieved of that order Hindustan Levers Ltd. have come up in appeal before this Commission.

(3.) WE are of the opinion that this argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant has force that no proper opportunity has been given to the Appellant to substantiate their case. The State Commission has proceeded to decide the complaint without giving an opportunity to the Appellant to cross -examine the deponents of the affidavits filed by the complainant and also denying the opportunity to the Appellant to examine the manufacturers and officials of the Certification Agency under Seeds Act. The Appellant filed an application before the State Commission dated 10th July, 1992 in which a prayer was made that since the complainant has filed his affidavit and the affidavits of two other witnesses it was just and proper that the witnesses be cross -examined and the company be permitted to produce its evidence as also the producer of the seeds namely M/s. Ambica Seeds and the Gujarat Seeds Certification Agency who has certified the seeds under the Seeds Act be called for evidence as otherwise there would be gross violation of principle of natural justice. The circumstances leading to the application were that the matter was adjourned to 6.6.92 after the written statement was filed. On the said date, the complainant filed his affidavit and the affidavits of two more deponents on. On the said dated i.e. 6.6.92 the Counsel for the Appellant Company was out of India and his junior requested for adjournment to file replies to those affidavits. However, adjournment was declined and the matter was kept for orders. On 8th July, 1992 the Counsel for the Company mentioned the matter to permit the Company to file its affidavit and cross -examine the witnesses as also to argue the matter. However, the State Commission directed the complainant to file affidavit and written submissions. These affidavits are mentioned in the applications. It may be mentioned here that on 10th July, 1992 written submissions were also filed and in which it was also mentioned that this is a matter where disputed questions of facts are involved and as such detailed evidence has to be led, the witnesses cross -examined and this is hot a matter which can be decided on affidavits. It appears that the State Commission did not grant permission to the Appellant to cross -examine the complainant and his two witnesses who had filed the affidavits nor permitted the Appellant to examine the witnesses sought to be produced. It would have been in the interest of justice if the State Commission had accepted the request of the Companys lawyer particularly when the case remained pending for about four months for orders.