AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
IA/5116, 5118, 5120/2017
For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 43 days in filing the Revision Petitions is condoned.
The applications stand disposed of. REVISION PETITIONS
Challenge in these Revision Petitions is to the order dated 4.10.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No.961/2016. By the impugned order, the State Commission, while dismissing the Appeals preferred by the Petitioner, did not condone the delay of 214 days observing that there were no substantial reasons given by the Petitioner in his application seeking condonation of delay.
Since the facts and point of law involved in these Revision Petitions is same, these are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, RP/1008/2017 is being taken as the lead case.
The brief facts, giving rise to the Complaint, are that the Complainant is an agriculturist and purchased two bags of paddy seeds, 76 Kg. per bag, for a total sum of 2,000/- from the Opposite Party. He sowed the seeds in his 6 acres of land and spent an amount of 30,000/- towards fertilizers and pesticides. 30 days after transplantation, the Complainant found that there was no proper growth and informed about the crop loss to the Mandal Agriculture Officer, Mahanandhi. On 28.10.2010, the Mandal Agriculture Officer and Scientists of Acharya Ranga Agricultural University inspected the fields and submitted a report to the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Nandyal. The report revealed 50% off type plants. The inspection was also done in the presence of the Opposite Party and the concerned MRO. It was stated that the Complainant also filed Criminal Complaint against the Opposite Party and an FIR was also lodged. Despite repeated requests, the matter was not settled with respect to payment of compensation and hence, the Complainant approached the District Forum seeking compensation for loss of crop yield, seed cost, expenditure incurred and mental agony.
The Opposite Party filed his Written Version stating that the Complaint was not maintainable; he was only an agriculturist and that there is no evidence to prove that the seeds were supplied by them. It was averred that the Complainant had mixed the seeds with other varieties and it was only due to improper crop management that the yield was 50% of the expected yield.
Based on the evidence adduced, i.e. the inspection report and also the depositions of the Scientists, who had given the report, the District Forum allowed the Complaint directing the Opposite Party to pay an amount of 48,000/- towards loss of crop; 10,000/- towards mental agony, 2,000/- towards costs to be paid within one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which interest at the rate of 9% p.a was awarded.
Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, Opposite Party preferred Appeal before the State Commission with a delay of 214 days. The State Commission, while dismissing the Appeal, observed as follows :
"12. Coming to his illness, the medical record filed by him does not disclose that he was suffering from any disability worth mentioning. The treatment which he is said to have taken in the Government General Hospital, Kurnool was in December, 2014 and May, 2015 and the treatment taken at Vaishnavi Super specialty Hospital, Kurnool and Harshala Neuro Lab was on 21.2.2015 and 30 th March, 2015. These treatments were received long before the order was passed i.e. on 29.10.2015 and they do not show that the petitioner is still laboring under the effects of the ailments.
The petitioner is said to have undergone eye check up on 8.1.2016 and on 18.4.2016 at Pranav Super Specialty Eye Hospital, Nandyal and at L. V. Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad on 13.6.2016. They are routine check-ups which lasted only a single day.
The treatment given to his daughter at LV Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, CARE Banjara, Hyderabad was also a single day treatment on 13.6.2016 and before that for one more day on 9. 6.2016 at Pranav Super Specialty Hospital, Nandyal.
From the aforesaid medical records it is clear that the complainant''s ailments were either six months before the order was passed or three months thereafter. There is no plausible explanation given by the appellant for the crucial period from January to April, 2016 except a single day check-up on 8.1.2016."
Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argued that there was no finding by the District Forum on the submission made by them in the written version that the seeds were never supplied by them. He further contended that there was no deficiency in service on their part, as it was never proved in the inspection report that the seeds were defective. It is observed from the record that the Petitioner had never filed any objections to the report of the Scientist; did not file any application under Section 13(1)(c) requesting for the sample seeds to be sent to the appropriate laboratory for testing; did not choose to cross-examine the Scientist who filed an affidavit before the fora below and also deposed before the State Commission.
It is observed from the record and also from the letter dated 30.12.2011 issued by the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Nandyal to the Complainant that 19 farmers from the said place made representations to the Joint Director, Kurnool on 22.10.2010. On 28.10.2010, the scientist visited all the 19 fields and submitted in his report that 50% of the seeds were spurious. Dr.Y.Narsimhulu also deposed on 11.2.2015 before the District Forum establishing the relevancy of Exhibit A-14, which is a letter dated 30.12.2011. In his cross-examination, he admitted that this Exhibit was issued by the Agriculture Department. It is pertinent to note that the State Commission had remanded this matter to the District Forum, where equal opportunity was given to both sides to prove their case. Even at this juncture, the Petitioner herein did not file any application under Section 13(1)(c) to send the seeds to an appropriate laboratory for testing.
The Hon''ble Apex Court, in National Seeds Corporation Ltd. vs. M.Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr. - (2012) 2 SCC 506 has observed that it is probable that the Complainants have sown all the seeds purchased by them and they were not in a position to send the seeds for analysis. In order to prove that the seeds sold to the Complainants were sub-standard/defective, the Petitioner could have sent the sample for testing to the laboratory, which it had failed to do so. No adverse inference can be drawn against the Complainant on the ground of his having not sent the sample of seeds for testing to the laboratory. The Complainant led the evidence of the State''s Agricultural Department in respect of his case, who also deposed before the District Forum after seeing the crop in the fields. The onus passes on to the Petitioner to prove that the seeds, which were used, were not defective, which he had failed to do so.
The State Commission, having gone through the reasons cited for condoning the inordinate delay of 214 days, dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner. I do not see any reason to interfere with the well-considered order of both the fora below, both on the question of not condoning the delay by the State Commission as also on merits.
In view of the above, all the Revision Petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.