HSDC vs Sat Narain , Rajbir

HEARD .

BRIEF facts are that Respondents/Complainants had purchased paddy seeds from the Petitioner/Opposite Party which they had sown in their respective fields. Upon germination of the plants, it was noticed that the paddy crop was of mixed quality and the same was due to defective mixed seeds supplied to them by the petitioner. Respondents stated that they have suffered more than 50% loss in their crops and they be compensated. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of petitioner, the respondents invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum by filing their respective complaints, seeking directions to the petitioner to compensate them.

PETITIONER contested the complaint. In written statement, Petitioner took the plea that seeds sold to the respondents were of good quality which was duly certified by the Seeds Testing Laboratory, Karnal. It was further stated that no complaint was received from the respondents with respect to any defect in the seeds sold to them. Therefore, complaints filed by them before the District Forum were not maintainable for want of non -compliance of the provision of Section 13(1) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the seeds were not got tested from any laboratory. Denying any kind of deficiency in service, it was prayed that complaints merit dismissal. District Forum vide order dated 28.8.2001, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay under -mentioned compensation against each respondents; i) Rajbir, Son of Mai Chand - Rs.19,200/ - ii) Sat Narain, Son of Sunder Dass - Rs.93,750/ - iii) Rajbir Singh, Son of Bija Ram Rs.29,700/ -.

BEING aggrieved, petitioner filed First Appeal Nos.3647/2001, 3654/2001 and 3655/2001 before the State Commission, which dismissed the same.

HENCE , present revisions.

THE Consumer complaints were filed in the year 2000. Thus, more than 15 years have lapsed. Even otherwise, there are concurrent findings of facts in favour of the respondents. Since, paltry amount are involved in these cases, under these circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain these petitions, in view of the decision of Apex Court in Gurgaon Gramin Bank Vs. Khazani and another, 2012 4 CPJ 5 , where Apex Court observed; "2. Number of litigations in our country is on the rise, for small and trivial matters, people and sometimes Central and State Governments and their instrumentalities Banks, nationalized or private, come to courts may be due to ego clash or to save the Officers'' skin. Judicial system is over -burdened, naturally causes delay in adjudication of disputes. Mediation centers opened in various parts of our country have, to some extent, eased the burden of the courts but we are still in the tunnel and the light is far away. On more than one occasion, this court has reminded the Central Government, State Governments and other instrumentalities as well as to the various banking institutions to take earnest efforts to resolve the disputes at their end. At times, some give and take attitude should be adopted or both will sink. Unless, serious questions of law of general importance arise for consideration or a question which affects large number of persons or the stakes are very high, Courts jurisdiction cannot be invoked for resolution of small and trivial matters. We are really disturbed by the manner in which those types of matters are being brought to courts even at the level of Supreme Court of India and this case falls in that category."

The Apex Court further held; "10. The Chief Manager stated in the affidavit that no bill was raised by the counsel for the bank for conducting the matter before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. We have not been told how much money has been spent by the bank officers for their to and fro journeys to the lawyers'' office, to the District Forum, State Forum, National Commission and to the Supreme Court. For a paltry amount of Rs.15000/ -,even according to the affidavit, bank has already spent a total amount of Rs.12,950/ - leaving aside the time spent and other miscellaneous expenses spent by the officers of the bank for to and fro expenses etc. Further, it may be noted that the District Forum had awarded Rs.3,000/ - towards cost of litigation and compensation for the harassment caused to Smt. Khazani. Adding this amount, the cost goes up to Rs.15,950/ -. Remember, the buffalo had died 10 years back, but the litigation is not over, fight is still on for Rs.15,000/ -.

Learned counsel appearing for the bank, Shri Amit Grover, submitted that though the amount involved is not very high but the claim was fake and on inspection by the insurance company, no tag was found on the dead body of the buffalo and hence the insurer was not bound to make good the loss, consequently the bank had to proceed against Smt. Khazani.

We are of the view that issues raised before us are purely questions of facts examined by the three forums including the National Disputes Redressal Commission and we fail to see what is the important question of law to be decided by the Supreme Court. In our view, these types of litigation should be discouraged and message should also go, otherwise for all trivial and silly matters people will rush to this court.

Gramin Bank like the appellant should stand for the benefit of the gramins who sometimes avail of loan for buying buffaloes, to purchase agricultural implements, manure, seeds and so on. Repayment, to a large extent, depends upon the income which they get out of that. Crop failure, due to drought or natural calamities, disease to cattle or their death may cause difficulties to gramins to repay the amount. Rather than coming to their rescue, banks often drive them to litigation leading them extreme penury. Assuming that the bank is right, but once an authority like District Forum takes a view, the bank should graciously accept it rather than going in for further litigation and even to the level of Supreme Court. Driving poor gramins to various litigative forums should be strongly deprecated because they have also to spend large amounts for conducting litigation. We condemn this type of practice, unless the stake is very high or the matter affects large number of persons or affects a general policy of the Bank which has far reaching consequences.

We, in this case, find no error in the decisions taken by all fact finding authorities including the National Disputes Redressal Commission. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/ - to be paid by the bank to the first respondent within a period of one month. Resultantly, the Bank now has to spend altogether Rs.25,950/ - for a claim of Rs.15,000/ -, apart from to and fro travelling expenses of the Bank officials. Let God save the Gramins."

ABOVE quoted observations of the Apex Court, with all force are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

UNDER these circumstances, as paltry amount are involved in these revisions, we are not inclined to entertain these revision petitions. However, question of law raised in these petitions, is kept open to be decided in an appropriate case, where the stakes are high.

THE present revisions stand disposed of accordingly.

NO order as to cost.

DASTI to both parties.