Pradeep Kumar Kushwaha vs Shubham Krishi Kendra. Dealer & Distributor & Anr

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Pradeep Kumar Kushwaha against the order dated 03.01.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in FA No.1193 of 2015.

Brief facts leading to the present revision petition are that the petitioner filed a consumer complaint alleging that the petitioner purchased 8 Kg of onion seeds from respondent No.2, which was manufactured by respondent No.1. The seeds did not germinate, therefore, the petitioner got them inspected by the officers of the agriculture department who found out that the seeds were not of the proper variety. The petitioner filed a consumer complaint bearing No.83 of 2012 before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Satna, (in short 'the District Forum'). The complaint was resisted by respondent No.2 by filing the written statement, however, respondent No.1 did not appear. The District Forum finally dismissed the complaint vide its order dated 24.08.2015 due to lack of evidence.

The complainant preferred an appeal bearing no. 1193 of 2015 before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 03.01.2019 on similar ground.

Hence the present revision petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage. Learned counsel stated that seeds were purchased from respondent No.2, which were produced by respondent No.1. Seeds did not germinate and the field was inspected by the agricultural officer, who has found that seeds were defective. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint on the ground that there was no evidence to show that the seeds were purchased from respondent no.2 and respondent no.1 was the manufacturer. The State Commission has also dismissed the appeal on the ground that the receipts filed by the complainant are not the receipts rather they are estimates given by the respondent no.1. Learned counsel further stated that both the respondents have denied selling seeds to the complainant. The fact is that respondent No.2 issued these estimates on the printed stationery of respondent no.1 in place of receipt of purchase. The complainant being a poor and illiterate farmer accepted the same. On one hand, the respondent no.2 has not issued the proper receipt and on the other hand respondents have not given any compensation to the complainant for loss of his onion crop.

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. Both the fora below have considered and have found that there is no proper receipt of purchase of the onion seeds. The State Commission has clearly observed that the papers filed by the complainant are the estimates given by the respondent No.1 and not the proper receipt. Both the respondents have denied selling seeds to the complainant. Both the fora below have given concurrent finding of fact and facts cannot be reassessed by this Commission as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654, wherein the following has been observed:-

"Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view that what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent finding of two fora."

As both the respondents have denied selling seeds to the complainant, therefore, in such a situation, without any receipt of purchase, it is difficult for this Commission to overrule the concurrent finding by the fora below.

Based on the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 03.01.2019 of the State Commission which calls for any interference from this Commission. Accordingly, the revision petition No.1347 of 2019 is dismissed at the admission stage.