Hsdc vs Kaptan Singh

HARYANA Seeds Development Corporation, petitioner herein, was the opposite party before the District Forum.

COMPLAINANT/respondent No. 1 is an agriculturist and owns three acres of land. As per averments made in the complaint, respondent had taken five acres of land on Theka @ Rs. 10,000 for raising the crops. The wheat seeds purchased by him from respondent No. 3 did not grow, as a result of which he suffered a loss of Rs. 3 lacs. He filed the complaint before the District Forum.

DISTRICT Forum after taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, came to the conclusion that the seeds supplied to the complainant by respondent No. 3 were defective which resulted in causing loss to the complainant. District Forum directed the opposite parties to pay damages @ Rs. 8,000 per acre. Taking the total loss to be 8 acres, the compensation of Rs. 64,000 was awarded. Rs. 1,100 were awarded by way of costs.

AGGRIEVED by the order passed by the District Forum, Haryana Seeds Development Corporation, the petitioner herein, which was one of the respondents, filed an appeal No. 349/2002(Hry)/RBT/1599/2008. The State Commission allowed the said appeal vide its order dated 6.11.2008. Order passed by the District Forum was set aside and the complaint filed by the respondent No. 1 was ordered to be dismissed.

AGAINST the order of the District Forum, Panipat Central Co-operative Bank Limited and two others had also filed appeal bearing No. 437/2002. The said appeal came up for hearing before another Bench of the State Commission, which has been disposed of by the impugned order. The State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by the Panipat Central Co-operative Bank Limited and others.

ORDER passed by the State Commission in appeal No. 349/2002 filed by the petitioner herein was not brought to the notice of the State Commission which has resulted in passing of contradictory order. Petitioner, whose appeal No. 349/2002 was allowed, has filed the Revision Petition seeking setting aside of the subsequent order passed by the State Commission to bring it in conformity with the earlier order passed by the State Commission in appeal No. 349/2002 to avoid passing of contradictory orders.

NOTICE was issued to the respondents for 3.9.2009 on which date respondent was not present in spite of due service. The case was adjourned for today with a direction to office to send a copy of the order to respondent with a note that in case he does not appear on the next date of hearing, he shall be proceeded ex parte and the Revision Petition disposed of finally. Respondent has been served. He is not present. Ordered to be proceeded ex parte.

WE have gone through the impugned order as well as order passed by the State Commission in appeal No. 349/2002. Both the appeals were directed against the same impugned order of the District Forum. In Appeal No. 349/2002 the order passed by the District Forum was set aside whereas in the order passed in the present Revision Petition, the order passed by the District Forum has been confirmed. The orders passed in the appeals are contradictory. It is a cardinal principle of law that contradictory orders lead to confusion and should not be allowed to stand and operate otherwise their implementation becomes impossible. Had earlier order passed in Appeal No. 349/2002 been brought to the notice of the Bench which heard the latter Appeal 437/2002 subsequently, we are sure that the State Commission would have passed the order in conformity with the conclusion arrived at in the earlier appeal. Since this order was not brought to the notice of the Bench consisting of the Members, it has led to passing of contradictory orders.

IN order to bring uniformity in the orders passed, we set aside the order passed in subsequent Appeal No. 437/2002 and allow the same in terms of the order passed in Appeal No. 349/2002. Revision Petition is allowed in the above terms. Revision Petition allowed.