VED PRAKASH vs OM PRAKASH

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 26 -07 -2012 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 1201 of 2011 -M/s. Ved Prakash & Sons & Ors. Vs. Om Prakash by which while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/respondent purchased six packets of cotton seeds from Opposite Party No. 1/Petitioner No. 1 and had sown seeds in his field. Complainant also spent huge amount in ploughing the field, watering and spraying pesticides, etc. Seeds did not germinate properly. Complainant approached opposite party but they did not pay heed to the request of complainant. Complainant moved application to Dy. Director, Agriculture, Fatehabad who constituted committee and submitted report according to which complainant suffered loss to the extent of 80 to 90%. Opposite Party No. 3 is the manufacturer of seeds. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite parties, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 resisted complaint and submitted that they are only dealer of seeds and they sold seeds in sealed and packed condition, which were of good quality and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Opposite party no. 3/petitioner no. 3 submitted that complainant did not follow proper instructions while sowing the seeds and further submitted that seeds were of good quality and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint. Appeal filed by opposite party was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned order is not a speaking order, hence revision petition be allowed and matter may be remanded back to learned State Commission for disposal by a speaking order. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that learned District Forum has elaborately discussed all aspects and order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, hence revision petition be dismissed.

PERUSAL of record reveals that learned State Commission quoted order of District Forum and ultimate findings of State Commission runs as under: - "From the perusal of documents available on the record, inspection report dated 13 -09 -2010 as well as the observations made by the District Forum, as mentioned above, we are of the view that due to substandard quality of seed the complainant has suffered loss of his cotton crop. The District Forum after considering each and every aspect of the case has rightly accepted the complaint of the complainant and issued directions to the opposite parties as mentioned above."

This order neither contains facts of the case, nor contains grounds taken by the petitioner in memo of appeal, nor contains any decision on those points and in such circumstances; this order cannot be stated to be a speaking order.

HON ''ble Apex Court in : (2001) 10 SCC 659 -HVPNL Vs. Mahavir observed as under: "1. In a number of cases coming up in appeal in this Court, we find that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh is passing a standard order in the following terms:

''We have heard the Law Officer of HVPN -appellant and have also perused the impugned order. We do not find any legal infirmity in the detailed and well -reasoned order passed by District Forum, Kaithal. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal''.

We may point out that while dealing with a first appeal, this is not the way to dispose of the matter. The appellate forum is bound to refer to the pleadings of the case, the submissions of the counsel, necessary points for consideration, discuss the evidence and dispose of the matter by giving valid reasons. It is very easy to dispose of any appeal in this fashion and the higher courts would not know whether learned State Commission had applied its mind to the case. We hope that such orders will not be passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh in future. A copy of this order may be communicated to the Commission".

IN the light of above judgment, it becomes clear that Appellate Court while deciding an appeal is required to deal with all the aspects and arguments raised by the appellant and as learned State Commission has not dealt with any facts of the case and arguments of the appellant, it would be appropriate to remand the matter back to the learned State Commission for disposal by speaking order after dealing with all the contentions and arguments raised by the petitioner. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and order dated 26 -07 -2012 passed by State Commission in Appeal No. 1201 of 2011 -M/s. Ved Prakash & Sons & Ors. Vs. Om Prakash is set aside and matter is remanded back to the learned State Commission for deciding it by speaking order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties.

PARTIES are directed to appear before the learned State Commission on 10.12.2014.