Common order in A/11/211 + A/11/212
Per – Hon’ble Mr. S. R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member
These two appeals are disposed of by this common order since they involve identical facts and common question of law.
[2] Heard Adv. Dipali Dhane for the Appellant/original Opponent No.1 and Adv. Alka S. More on behalf of the Respondent/original Complainant. Respondent No.2/original Opponent No.2 remain absent. He did not prefer any appeal and the Appellant does not press the appeal against him.
[3] Admitted as against the Respondent No.1/original Complainant only and heard forthwith with the consent of both the parties.
[4] Appeal No.211 of 2011 takes an exception to an order dated 6/1/2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur (‘the Forum’ in short) in Consumer Complaint No.33 of 2010, Mr. Uday Rajaram Nannajkar Vs. Manager, Krishidhan Seeds Ltd. and Anr. Appeal No.212 of 2011 takes an exception to an order dated 6/1/2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur (‘the Forum’ in short) in Consumer Complaint No.32 of 2010, Mr. Maruti Krishna Pawar Vs. Manager, Krishidhan Seeds Ltd. and Anr.
[5] In both these appeals, the consumer complaints pertain to defects in the sunflower seeds manufactured by Krishidhan Seeds Ltd. In both these complaints, it is alleged that the seeds were purchased by the Respondent No.1/original Complainants (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Complainants’ for the sake of brevity) from M/s. Fatate Agro and Sales Agency. Said seeds were found defective and hence, these two consumer complaints were filed. The Forum partly allowed both these consumer complaints and directed the Appellant/original Opponent No.1 and the Respondent No.2/original Opponent No.2 jointly and severally to pay to an amount of `60,000/- towards compensation besides an amount of `1,000/- towards costs to the Complainant in Consumer Complaint No.33 of 2010 (Appellant in Appeal No.211 of 2010) and to pay an amount of `20,000/- towards compensation besides an amount of `1,000/- towards costs to the Complainant in Consumer Complaint No.32 of 2010 (Appellant in Appeal No.212 of 2010). Feeling aggrieved by the impugned orders, the Appellant, namely – Krishidhan Seeds Pvt. Ltd., has filed these two appeals.
[6] It is submitted on behalf of the Appellant that in both these consumer complaints, the Complainants did not purchase the alleged defective seeds and, therefore, they are not the ‘consumers’ within the meaning of Section-2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity). When such case was specifically pleaded and stand taken by the original Opponent No.1, namely – Manager, Krishidhan Seeds Ltd.; the Complainants ought to have answered to it. On the contrary, as per the statements made in both these consumer complaints, it is the Complainants who have purchased the seeds. Now, it is argued before us that the Complainants being the Members/Office Bearers of ‘Navoday Krishi Vigyan Mandal, Mangrul’, the seeds were purchased by them. However, the tax invoice on the record did not support/corroborate such case of the Complainants and thus, the Complainants being not the purchasers of the seeds, cannot be held as ‘consumers’.
[7] Besides that these two consumer complaints are not filed as against the manufacturer of the seeds, namely – M/s. Krishidhan Seeds Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as ‘M/s. Krishidhan Seeds Ltd.’) or against the dealer, namely – M/s. Fatate Agro and Sales Agency, from whom the seeds were purchased. Officials, namely, the Managers of the respective organizations are separate, independent and distinct juridic ‘person’ as defined under Section-2(1)(m) of the Act than their respective organizations. However, since both these appeals are preferred, being the aggrieved party, by the manufacturer of seeds, namely – M/s. Krishidhan Seeds Pvt. Ltd., and since the appeal is not preferred by the original Opponent No.2, namely – Manager, Fatate Agro and Sales Agency; we prefer to ignore this aspect. The Appellant filed these appeals claiming as an aggrieved party.
[8] When we made an inquiry from the Learned Counsel for the Respondents/original Complainants as to what sort of evidence is led on their behalf as per provisions of Section-13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; answer came in the negative. Learned Counsel for the Respondents/original Complainants also tried to refer to an affidavit sworn on 15/3/2010 by Mr. Abhay Sureshrao Andure, who claims to be an authorized signatory of the manufacturer of seeds, namely – M/s. Krishidhan Seeds Ltd., Jalna. Said affidavit is of no use to the Complainants particularly when this being the only evidence adduced on the record categorically denying the relationship of a ‘consumer’ and ‘service provider’ between the Complainant and the original Opponent No.1 and further assertively stating that no notice of inspection carried out by the Seeds Verification Committee was received by the manufacturer of the seeds. Under the circumstances, since no notice was issued by the Seeds Verification Committee to the manufacturer of the seeds prior to carrying spot inspection and submission of report as regards quality of seeds, which is contrary to the directions issued by the Government on said topic and since there is no affidavit establishing the observations of the said Seeds Verification Committee, we find, that piece of document, namely – the report, cannot be taken into consideration. Besides that said report mentions about 100% adulteration to the seeds. Who has actually adulterated the seeds and responsible for the same is not established by the Complainants.
[9] For the reasons stated above, we find the impugned orders cannot sustain in the eyes of law. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER
Appeal No.211 of 2011 and Appeal No.212 of 2011 are hereby allowed.
Impugned orders dated 6/1/2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur in Consumer Complaint No.32 of 2010 and Consumer Complaint No.33 of 2010 are hereby set aside so far it relates to the Appellant, namely – M/s. Krishidhan Seeds Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as M/s. Krishidhan Seeds Ltd.). Consequently, both these consumer complaint stands dismissed as against the original Opponent No.1.
In the given circumstances, parties to bear their own costs.
Pronounced and dictated on 13th December, 2011
