J K AGRI-GENETICS Vs. SIDDULA RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 before the District Forum, where the respondents / complainants in all these revision petitions, had filed individual complaints alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners are the producer of Cotton Seed variety RCH-2. The complainants had sown this variety of cotton seed in their fields, after having purchased this variety from their dealer, but when the 'boll' were not getting 'formed' and yield was not to the expected level, the matter was reported to the petitioners as also the Agricultural Authorities. But when the matter was not being sorted out between the parties, a complaint was filed before the District Forum. It is pertinent to mention here that almost 300 complaints were filed before the District Forum and the District Forum has passed separate orders dealing with the complaints, in several bunches. In the present instance the District Forum dismissed the complaints filed by the respondents before us, primarily, in most of the cases, on the ground that they have not proved that seed were purchased by them as they have not been able to produce the original receipt of purchase of seed in the absence they were not held to be 'consumer'. Aggrieved by this order of the District Forum, 72 separate appeals were filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties and relying upon especially on the report of the Agricultural Authorities dated 24.3.2004 and other material allowed the complaints and awarded compensation to be payable by the two petitioners before us, keeping in view the area taken for cotton production by different complainants along with cost of seeds as also the cost. Aggrieved by this order, these 72 separate revision petitions have been filed before us.

(3.) At the time of hearing, the petitioner admitted its error in filing 13 revision petitions and sought permission to withdraw and they were dismissed as withdrawn. With regard to the remaining 59 revision petitions, 52 respondents were represented by learned Counsel Mr. K. Maruthi Rao (RP No. 3568 - 3602, 3604 - 3609, 3615, 3617, 3624 - 3626, 3631, 3634 - 3638 of 2006), and one respondent is represented by Ms. Prabha Swami (RP No. 3630 of 2006). The other six respondents / complainants have been served and paid Rs. 2,500 by the petitioner on our direction to enable them to come and defend the case yet they did not appear, hence they are proceeded ex parte.