Mohan Giri vs ANNAPOORNA KRISHI SEVA KENDRA

THE complainant aggrieved of the order dated 16.7.1998 passed in Case No. 46/95 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhar (for short the ''District Forum'').

THE complainant filed a complaint to claim compensation for deficiency in service in supply of sub-standard quality of pesticides (Weedicide) manufactured by respondent-Hindustan Ciba-Geigy Limited. THE complaint was resisted by the respondents. THE District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that in summary jurisdiction the complicated issues requiring expert evidence and elaborate scrutiny cannot be adjudicated, therefore, the complainant, if so advised, may institute a civil suit in the Court of competent jurisdiction to claim the loss suffered by them for supply of sub-standard quality of pesticides (Weedicide). Mr. Mohan Chouksey, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that even if the expert evidence is required to be recorded that will not make the complaint involving complicated and complex issues for adjudication. Reliance was placed on a decision of the National Commission in A. Perumal & Ors. v. M/s. Velwyn Television Ltd. & Anr., I (1996) CPJ 164 (NC). Counsel also submits that if the complainants are relegated to the Civil Court, their suit now would be barred by time.

Mr. Rakesh Johri, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that pesticides (Weedicide) was of sub-standard quality or not and now much the quantities of pesticides (Weedicide) used in the agriculture fields of the complainant and the loss suffered would certainly require an elaborate enquiry. Therefore, the District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint granting liberty to the complainant to institute civil suit. If the civil suit is filed the complainant may claim the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act so as to bring the suit within limitation.

IN view of the decision of the National Commission in A. Perumal & Ors. v. M/s. Velwyn Television Ltd. & Anr. (supra), and the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in case of Amar Jwala Paper Mills (INdia) & Anr. v. State Bank of INdia, I (1999) CLT 441 (SC)=II (1999) SLT 478, if the complainants are relegated to the Civil Court their suit would be barred by time. If, at the preliminary hearing when the complaints were filed in the year 1995, the District Forum would have directed the complainants to resort to the remedy of the civil suit, the position certainly would have been different. In the circumstances, we set aside the order of the District Forum and remit the case to the District Forum for deciding the complaint afresh in accordance with law on merits after hearing the parties who shall appear before the District Forum on 15.3.2000 of which no notice shall be issued to the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as they have been noticed here through their Counsel. However, the District Forum shall issue notice to respondent No. 1. The District Forum is directed to decide the complaints within a period of 90 days from the date of appearance of the parties.

IN the result, the appeal is allowed and the case is sent back to the District Forum for deciding it afresh in accordance with law. Parties to bear their own costs of this appeal. A copy of this order be conveyed to the parties and a copy be sent to the District Forum alongwith the record of the case post haste. Appeal allowed.