Hameed And Co. vs Basvarajappa And Ors.

THESE Revision Petitions have been filed with a delay of 117 days for which condonation application has been filed in which it is stated as under: "That the revisionist''s firm is a partnership firm which was managed through its partners Mr. Althaf Sait and his wife. They were also responsible for managing and looking after the welfare of the firm. He represented the firm before the District Forum however he has expired on 21.12.2008 after the long illness. It would not be out of place to mention that late Altaf Sait''s wife already expired and hence this revision petition has been filed by the brother namely Mohammad Akram who was not an active partner at the relevant time and he came to know of the impugned order only when he received notice of execution of the decree and was asked to appear before the Hon''ble District Forum on 11.12.2008."

IT is not believable that brother of Althaf Sait who was also partner of the firm was not an active partner whereas the wife of Mr. Altaf Sait was an active partner. Reasons given for condonation of delay are neither just nor fair. Hence the petition can be dismissed on the ground of delay alone.

HOWEVER , we have considered the matter on merit also. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondents were the complainants before the District Forum and the petitioner was a dealer in seeds. Opponent No. 2 was the producer of Arunodaya JGL 1798 variety of paddy seeds and the petitioner, who was opponent No. 1 before the District Forum is the authorized dealer of the opponent No. 2.

THE complainants had bought paddy seeds by paying Rs. 410 per bag. These seeds were used to prepare paddy saplings. It is the case of the complainant that they were told that the seeds were of improved variety and they will get a yield of more than 45 quintals of paddy crop per acre. Earlier the complainants were using 1001 variety and Jaya variety of paddy seeds and used to get harvest of 40 quintals of paddy per acre. Believing the words of the dealer and the manufacturer, they bought Arunodaya JGL 1798 variety of seeds. They invested around Rs. 8,000 per acre.

TO the utter shock of the complainants, they could visualize that they could barely get 4 to 5 quintals of paddy yield per acre in spite of proper cultivation. Immediately, the complainant farmers rushed to the Assistant Agricultural Officer (AAO) and brought the said fact of poor yield to his notice, who inspected the spot on 27.6.2006 and submitted a report to the Assistant Director of Agriculture (ADA) Bhadravathi. The ADA issued a report on the basis of the report of AAO Anveri and as per the said report, there was 80% lesser yield than the actual yield. Therefore, they filed complaints before the District Forum seeking relief.

THE District Forum held that the dealer and the producer to be equally responsible and liable to pay compensation for the loss sustained by the complainants for having sold admixture/defective seeds to the complainants. The District Forum also held that it was an unfair trade practice on the part of the opponent and there is a clear -cut case of deficiency on their part. As the facts and issues involved in the case were similar, the District Forum heard the matters together and passed the following order: The complaints filed by the complainants in Complaint Nos. 96/2007 to 103/2007 are partly allowed.

The complainant Basavarajappa, S/o Mallappa is entitled to compensation of Rs. 27,356.

The complainant Chandrappa, S/o Mallappa is entitled to compensation of Rs. 26,000.

The complainant T. Hanuman -tappa, S/o Mariyappa is entitled to compensation of Rs. 13,100.

The complainant K. Kalleshappa, S/o Rudrappa is entitled to compensation of Rs. 15,578.

The complainant H. Nagarajappa, S/o Siddappa is entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,500.

The complainant Parameshwarappa, S/o Mallappa is entitled to compensation of Rs. 25,400.

AGGRIEVED by the orders of the District Forum, the dealer filed appeals before the State Commission.

THE State Commission observed that the complainants have produced the report of the Assistant Director of Agriculture who in his report has clearly stated that the complainants could not get the regular yield because of the defect in the seeds. If that is so, in their view the District Forum is right in directing the appellant to pay compensation.

THE State Commission held that as the complainants had got some yield though not regular yield, the compensation awarded by the District Forum in all these cases requires modification. The State Commission observed as under: "The District Forum dismissed the complaints as against opposite party No. 2 since the complainants have not taken any steps to get OP -2 served. These appeals have already been dismissed as against Rule 2 by this Commission by its order dated 4.7.2008."

FURTHER the State Commission held that the petitioner is directed to pay 75% of the compensation awarded by the District Forum in favour of each of the complainants with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of its order till the date of realization.

AGGRIEVED by the order of the State Commission, these Revision Petitions have been filed before us.

THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Agricultural Officer who inspected the field did not give adequate opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence in this case. Several other farmers who had purchased the seeds did not complain about the poor quality of seeds. He further submitted that the proceedings were dropped against the manufacturer as no notice could be issued upon them before the District Forum, when this matter was urged by the petitioner before the State Commission, State Commission permitted them to serve dasti notice on the manufacturer. First time when the effort was made to serve notice, the door was found locked. On the second opportunity the petitioner was ill at that time hence he could not serve the notice. Therefore, for no fault of the petitioner, the proceedings were not brought against manufacturer by the State Commission. He further submitted that he wants permission to proceed against the manufacturer in the event; the order is passed against the petitioner.

IT is clear from this case that the seeds were sold by the dealer to the farmers and it is on record that the Assistant Agricultural Officer of the State Government inspected the field and submitted a report to the Assistant Director of Agriculture, who in turn had issued a report stating that yield was only 80% of the expected yield. The District Forum had partly allowed the complaint and ordered payment of compensation by the petitioner which has been further reduced to 75% of the amount ordered by the District Forum with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the order of the State Commission.

IN the Revision Petitions filed by the petitioner, it is stated that the employee of the petitioner used harsh words against their Advocate, therefore, the lawyer had filed a retirement memo before the District Forum, which was granted and hence he could not pursue the matter before the District Forum. This is not the fault of the complainant. The State Commission was pleased to permit direct notices by the petitioner on the producer, which was not effected by the petitioner. Hence we have no doubt that ample opportunities were given to the petitioner by both the Fora.

IN view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we do not like to interfere with the detailed reasons given by the District Forum regarding deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the petitioner, which has been concurred by the State Commission. The State Commission on re -examination the issue of compensation has reduced the compensation to a reasonable level of 75% of the sum awarded by the District Forum.

THEREFORE , I do not see any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the Fora below. Accordingly, these revision petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. However, the petitioner is free to proceed against the producers (manufacturers), if so advised. R.P. dismissed.