NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1264/2004

SHEETAL HYBRID SEEDS CO. LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIJAY SOPANRAO BHONGALE & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

SHUBHAKARAN DHANUKA

03 Aug 2009

ORDER

Date of Filing: 17 Jun 2004

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/1264/2004
(Against the Order dated 08/03/2004 in Appeal No. 747/2001 of the State Commission Maharastra)
1. SHEETAL HYBRID SEEDS CO. LTDCORNER MANTHA ROAD JAINA NA ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. VIJAY SOPANRAO BHONGALE & ANR.R/O MALINAGAR GAT NO. 2 TAMBVE MALISHIRAS SHOLAPUR ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :NEMO
For the Respondent :Mr.Sanjay Sharma, Adv. for N/A, Advocate

Dated : 03 Aug 2009
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

          This case was being adjourned to await the decision of the Supreme Court in an Appeal filed by the National Seeds Corporation challenging the jurisdiction of the consumer fora to entertain the complaint in view of the existence of the Seeds Act.  We had dismissed the appeal filed by National Seeds Corporation.  Thereafter, we have dealt with a number of similar cases on merits taking into consideration the judgement passed by this Commission in National Seeds Corporation vs. Nalia Narsimha Roa & connected matters. Supreme Court in subsequent judgements has also taken the same view in Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Sadhu & Anr. – 2005(2)Supreme 169.

          In this case, the respondent/complainant had purchased 18 Kg of onion seeds from the dealer of the producer, which is not in dispute.  State Commission has arrived at the conclusion which it based on the report of the expert of the laboratory, which clearly held the producer responsible for the loss caused due to inferior quality of seeds produced by it.  There is no material brought on record by the petitioner to rebut this expert opinion, in view of which, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission.  Dismissed.

 



......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER