Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/24/2015

Rommala Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. Vemula Reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Indira Seeds Partner / Manager - Opp.Party(s)

In person

05 Feb 2016

ORDER

Date of Filing     :18-03-2015

                                                                                                Date of Disposal:05-02-2016

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE

Friday, this the 5^th  day of  February, 2016

 

PRESENT: Sri M. Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com.,B.L.,LL.M.,President(FAC) & Member                             

                   Sri N.S. Kumara Swamy, B.Sc.,LL.B., Member.

 

C.C.No.24/2015

 

1.	Kommula Bhaskar Reddy, S/o.Vemula Reddy, Age 32 years, K.Uppalapalli Village, Chinnapareddipalli Post, Venkatagiri Mandal, Nellore District.
2.	Konapuram Venkata Sivaiah,  S/o.Eswaraiah, Age 35 years,  K.Uppalapalli Village, Chinnapareddipalli Post, Venkatagiri Mandal, Nellore District.                                           ..…Complainants

                                                                           Vs.

 

1.	Sri Indira Seeds Partner / Manager, Sri Indira Seeds, D.M.Reddy Residency, N.S.C. Bose Road, Subedarpet, Nellore.
2.	Director of Agriculture, Venkatagiri,Nellore District.                                                      ..…Opposite parties

                                                              .  

            This complaint coming on 04-02-2016 before us for hearing in the presence of                complainant inperson and Sri S. Dayakar Reddy,                                                      advocate for the opposite party No.1 and steps of opposite party No.2  are not taken and opposite party No.2 is dismissed  and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:

 

ORDER

(ORDER BY  Sri N.S. KUMARA SWAMY, MEMBER)

 

This complaint is filed under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.3,40,000/- towards crop loss, Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs, totaling to Rs.4,45,000/-.

 

2.         The brief averments of the complaint, the complainant submitted that they took 30 acres of land for lease for cultivation and as per the  promises of opposite party No.1, the  complainant purchased paddy seed BPT  05204  and planted the same.  But due to  impurity of seed, the complainant lost 450 bags  of paddy,  the complainant also approached opposite party No.2. and the agricultural officer of opposite party No.2 inspected the crop and accepted the loss sustained by the complainants due to impurity  of seeds supplied by opposite party No.1.  Opposite party No.2, who is the head of agricultural office did not take any action against  1^st opposite party for selling the defective seeds.   An account  of selling defective seeds by opposite party No.1 and  also not taken any action by opposite party No.2 on opposite party No.1,  the complainants sustained loss of Rs.3,40,000/- .  Hence, the complaint   directing the opposite parties for payment  of Rs.3,40,000/- besides Rs.1,00,000/- lakhs  towards compensation for mental agony and also costs of Rs.5,000/- (aggregating Rs.4,45,000/-).

 

3.         On the other hand opposite party No.1  filed counter / written version denying all the averments made by the complainant.  The opposite party No.1 contended that complainant made baseless allegations  only to get wrongful   gain against the                       1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party  contended  that he was  doing business only on the commission basis of the material supplied by the A.P.Seeds corporation from Srikalahasti area.  So, the complainant must have to proceed against the agricultural department but not on 1^st opposite party, who is doing as a distributor on  commission basis.  Further contended that  the due process of law left before the complainants to proceed against the  agricultural department for compensation, if any loss occurred due to defects in seeds.  Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of 1^st opposite party and the case may be dismissed with costs.

 

            4.         Notice  served to opposite party no.1 and his counsel filed vakalat.  Notice to opposite party No.2 returned as unserved as “office not  in the Venkatagiri” and posted for steps against opposite party No.2.  The complainant did not evince any interest to take steps against  opposite party No.2 inspite  of granting  several  opportunities  given.  Hence, the case against opposite party No.2  dismissed on 21-01-2016.  Further the complainant and opposite party No.1 did not file evidence on affidavits eventhough several opportunities  given.  Both parties called absent.  No representation from both sides.  Hence, the case was reserved for orders on 04-02-2016.  Perused the records on  both sides and proceeded with the case on merits. 

 

            5.         The points for determination would be:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, if so?  Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for?
2. To what relief?

            6.         Both  parties not filed their respective written arguments.

            7.         POINT No:1: Before proceeding to decide on this aspect, a blunt reading of Section-13 (ii) of Consumer Protection Act would highlight  the fact that  a consumer dispute under the Act can be settled by the District Forum only on the basis of some evidence.  Clause (ii) of Section-13 clearly lays down that even when the opposite party omits or fails to take any action to represent his case before the Forum, the matter has still to decided on the basis of evidence  brought  to its notice by the complainant himself.  Thus even in exparte proceedings, the decision of the Forum has to necessarily  rests on the basis of evidence.  Obviously,  it would be mere so whether  the opposite party comes forward to deny or dispute the allegations made in the complaint.  Such situation was governed by clause (i) of Section-13 and by statutory mandate  such a consumer dispute can only be settled on the basis of evidence adduced by the complainant or the opposite party.  In a contested mater pertaining to consumer dispute, the District Forum has to rest on the basis of evidence.    Further, the orders of redressal Forum under Consumer Protection Act, 1986  are quasi judicial have to be based on  acceptable evidence.

 

            8.         In the instant case,  there was no evidence placed before this Forum either on the complainants side as well as on the 1^st opposite party side.  Since, the steps against 2^nd opposite party not taken by the complainant inspite of giving several chances, hence, the case against 2^nd opposite party is dismissed.  Since, this Forum not taken proper steps as per procedures of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  This Forum cannot act in exercise of its jurisdiction  illegally and with material irregularity.

            9.         As  has been pointed above, the answer  to the question posed  at the outside  is rendered in the inactive and the statutory  mandate of the Act is that the  same has to be settled  on the basis of evidence which is totally lacking here.

            10.       Regretfully we find no option except to dismiss the complaint on the  point of material irregularity.  Accordingly, this point No.1 is answered.

            11.       POINT No.2:  In the result,  the complaint is dismissed without costs.  Each party shall bare their own costs.

Typed to the dictation to the Stenographer, corrected  and pronounced by us in the open  Forum, this the  5^th day of   February, 2016.

 

 

               Sd/-                                                                                                   Sd/-

           MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT(F.A.C.)

 

                                                APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-Nil-

                                                                                                                    Id/-

                                                                                                         PRESIDENT(F.A.C.)

 

Copies to:

 

1.	Sri  Kommula Bhaskar Reddy, S/o.Vemula Reddy and Sri Konapuram Venkata Sivaiah,  S/o.Eswaraiah, K.Uppalapalli Village,  Chinnapareddipalli Post, Venkatagiri Mandal, Nellore District.
2.	Sri S. Dayakar Reddy,  Advocate, D.No.24-6-63, Saraswathi Nagar, Behind Ladies Polytechnic College, Dargamitta, Nellore-524 003.
3.	The Director of Agriculture, Venkatagiri,Nellore District.

 

Date when free copy was issued: