M.V.ARUNACHALAM, CHAIRMAN, E.I.D.PARRY (INDIA) LTD. vs VELLORE ANJAPPA MUDALIAR

THIS is a Revision Petition filed against the Order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in CDA No. 152 of 1991. The facts as gathered from the record are that the present Respondent No. 1-Vellore Anjappa Modaliar had filed a complaint against the present petitioners and present Respondent No. 2 Meena Agencies. The case of the Complainant is that he had purchased tomato seeds on 10.1.1988 from one Abdul Subhan who was the dealer of E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd. (i.e. present Petitioner No. 1) with regard to tomato seed. He sowed those seeds in his fields in an extent of Ac.4-50 cents. Even though he raised the crop in proper conditions with necessary manure, watering etc., 4he yield of tomatoes was small in size and watery and rubber like. He claimed Rs. 7,825.50 as damages. This sum consisted of Rs. 15,000/- as damages per acre Rs. 100/- as costs of the seeds and Rs. 7,225.50 towards expenditure for raising the crop.

THE present petitioners contested the complaint and averred that they market the seed under certification as also by affixing the truthful lable of the seeds, marketed by it. The seeds are subject to quality analysis and tests in full fledged laboratory by the technicians of the Company. The entire operation is supervised by technically qualified persons right from the fields to the proceeding centre and packing. They did not admit that Meena agencies was their Dealer. It was further pleaded that the tomato crop like any other crop depends, apart from the seed quality, upon the season, water and irrigation facilities and supply of nutrients and effective use of fertilisers and such other factors. Seeds by itself without the other requirements cannot give a good crop. The Company has printed instructions are given after laboratory tests. The Complainant did not seem to have followed the instructions. The Complainant did not allege that the seeds purchased by him were in a container having the label of their company. Even the cash receipts produced by the Complainant did not establish that the seeds purchased by him were the seeds marketed by their Company. The fourth Opposite Party i.e. Meena Agencies (now Respondent No. 2) filed a separate counter contesting the claim of the Complainant. According to them they have not sold the seeds to the Complainant. The Complainant himself alleges that he had purchased the seeds from one Abdul Subhan.

THE District Forum, Chittoor before whom complaint was filed awarded a sum of Rs. 29,825/- as compensation payable to the Complainant by the present Petitioners. The claim against the Meena Agencies was dismissed on the ground that there was no evidence to show that Abdul Subhan from whom the seeds were purchased had any connection with Meena Agencies which had been made Opposite Party, through its manager K. Karamathulla.

FEELING aggrieved against the said Order the present Petitioners who are various officers of E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd. filed appeal before the State Commission but it did not meet with any success. Hence, this Revision Petition by them. After hearing the parties we are of the opinion that the present Revision Petition has to be allowed. The seeds were alleged to have been purchased from Abdul Subhan while Meena Agencies had been made responsible from whom the seeds are said to have been purchased. Even the District Forum had remarked that there is no co-relation between Meena Agencies and Abdul Subhan. There is also no evidence to show that the seeds sold by Abdul Subhan to the Complainant were marketed by the present Petitioners. Another factor to be noted is that the complaint was filed more than two years after the alleged purchase of the seeds. There is nothing on the file to show that during this period any written notice was given by the Complainant to the present Petitioners. Of course, oral complaints have been alleged by the Complainant.

IT has been rightly alleged by the Petitioners that there was not evidence to show that the instructions for sowing the seeds were followed or the crops were raised as per specifications and directions with proper facilities of supply of nutrients, water etc. As noticed earlier the Petitioners have gone to the extent of saying that the cash memo produced by the Complainant does not even establish that the seeds purchased by him were the seeds marketed by them. The Petitioners had denied all the allegations of the Complainant. The Complainant did not lead any evidence in support of his case. The record does not show that the Complainant had testified in the witness box to support his case or even filed his affidavit.

IN the above circumstances we are of the opinion that both the District Forum and the State Commission fell into error in allowing the complaint merely on the basis of the allegations contained in the complaint petition. Hence, we accept the Revision Petition and set aside the Orders of the District Forum and the State Commission and dismiss the complaint. However, we make no order as to costs.