- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
KANTA KANTHA RAO v. Y. SURYA NARAYANA
Structured Summary of the Opinion: IA/5116, 5118, 5120/2017
Factual and Procedural Background
The present proceedings concern Revision Petitions challenging an order dated 4.10.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh in First Appeal No. 961/2016. The State Commission had dismissed the appeals preferred by the Petitioner and refused to condone a delay of 214 days in filing those appeals. Because the facts and point of law are the same across petitions, they were disposed of by a common order with RP/1008/2017 taken as the lead case.
The underlying complaint arose from a transaction in which the Complainant (an agriculturist) purchased two bags of paddy seeds (76 kg per bag) for a total of Rs. 2,000 from the Opposite Party. The Complainant sowed these seeds on six acres, incurring about Rs. 30,000 on fertilizers and pesticides. Thirty days after transplantation, poor crop growth was noticed; an inspection on 28.10.2010 by the Mandal Agriculture Officer and scientists of Acharya Ranga Agricultural University reported "50% off type plants." The inspection was conducted in the presence of the Opposite Party and the MRO. The Complainant also lodged a criminal complaint and an FIR.
Unable to settle the matter, the Complainant approached the District Forum seeking compensation for crop loss, seed cost, expenses and mental agony. The District Forum, relying on the inspection report and the depositions of the scientists, allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party to pay Rs. 48,000 (loss of crop), Rs. 10,000 (mental agony) and Rs. 2,000 (costs), with interest at 9% p.a. in case of default.
The Opposite Party appealed to the State Commission with an alleged delay of 214 days. The State Commission refused to condone that delay after examining medical records and other explanations and dismissed the appeal. The present revision challenge seeks to set aside that order; however, an application in the revision proceedings for condonation of 43 days' delay in filing the Revision Petitions was allowed by the revisional court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the delay of 214 days in filing the appeal before the State Commission should be condoned.
- Whether the District Forum's findings holding the Opposite Party liable (based on inspection report and scientific depositions) for defective/spurious seeds and awarding compensation should be interfered with on merit, in particular given the Petitioner/Opposite Party's contention that the seeds were not supplied by them or were not defective.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's (Opposite Party in the original complaint) Arguments
- The Complaint was not maintainable.
- The Opposite Party was only an agriculturist (implying lack of commercial supplier liability).
- There was no evidence that the seeds in question were supplied by the Opposite Party.
- The reduced yield was due to the Complainant mixing the seeds with other varieties and/or improper crop management, not due to defective seeds supplied by the Opposite Party.
- Counsel for the Petitioner also contended there was no finding by the District Forum on the specific submission that the seeds were never supplied by them and that there was no proved deficiency in service by the Opposite Party because the inspection did not expressly show the seeds were defective.
Complainant / District Forum Evidence (as summarized in the opinion)
- The inspection report and depositions of State agricultural scientists indicated "50% off type plants" and supported the Complainant's claim.
- The Assistant Director of Agriculture issued a letter dated 30.12.2011 noting that 19 farmers made representations and that the scientist's visit on 28.10.2010 covered those fields.
- The Complainant led evidence of the State Agricultural Department and the relevant scientists who deposed before the District Forum and State Commission.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| National Seeds Corporation Ltd. vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy, (2012) 2 SCC 506 | The observation that complainants may have sown all the seeds purchased and therefore may not have been in a position to send samples for laboratory analysis; that to prove seeds were sub-standard the seller could have sent samples for testing; and that no adverse inference could automatically be drawn against a complainant for not sending seed samples for testing. | The Court relied on this precedent to note (a) the Petitioner's failure to request laboratory testing under Section 13(1)(c) and (b) that while a complainant's inability to send samples may be understandable, the onus to prove that the seeds used were not defective shifted to the Petitioner who had not discharged it. The precedent supported the court's view that the Petitioner's omission to seek testing weighed against interfering with the fora below. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court's analysis proceeded in discrete steps, addressing both the procedural (delay) aspect and the merits:
- Procedural—condonation of delay before the State Commission: The State Commission examined the medical records and other documents submitted in support of the delay explanation. It noted that the medical treatments cited by the appellant took place well before the impugned order (dated 29.10.2015) or were single-day routine check-ups (for example, eye check-ups on 8.1.2016 and 18.4.2016 and visits on 9.6.2016 and 13.6.2016). The State Commission concluded these records did not demonstrate an ongoing disability or a plausible explanation for the crucial period (January–April 2016) and therefore refused to condone the 214-day delay.
- Merits—evidence regarding defective seeds and the burden of proof: On the merits, the court observed that the District Forum's conclusion relied upon the inspection report and depositions of the scientists who inspected the fields and reported 50% off-type plants. The record contained a letter dated 30.12.2011 from the Assistant Director of Agriculture indicating 19 farmers had complained and that the scientist's inspection covered all those fields.
- Procedural opportunities and omissions by the Petitioner: The court emphasized that the Petitioner did not file objections to the scientist's report, did not file an application under Section 13(1)(c) requesting that sample seeds be sent to an appropriate laboratory for testing, and did not cross-examine the scientist who had submitted an affidavit and given deposition. Even after the State Commission remanded the matter to the District Forum and both sides were given equal opportunity to prove their cases, the Petitioner still did not seek laboratory testing under Section 13(1)(c).
- Use of precedent and allocation of onus: The court referred to the Apex Court decision in National Seeds Corporation Ltd. vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy to explain that while complainants may sometimes be unable to send seed samples for analysis, a seller (the Petitioner here) who wishes to disprove the allegation that seeds were defective can and should avail himself of the opportunity to have samples tested. The court treated the Petitioner's failure to seek testing and to challenge the scientific evidence as a failure to discharge the onus placed upon him to prove that the seeds were not defective.
- Conclusion on interference: Having reviewed the reasons given by the State Commission for refusing to condone delay and the evidentiary record on the merits, the revisional court found no reason to interfere with the well-considered orders of the fora below—both in respect of the refusal to condone the delay and on the substantive findings regarding defective seeds and compensation.
Holding and Implications
Holding:
All Revision Petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.
Implications:
- The dismissal leaves intact the District Forum's order directing payment by the Opposite Party of Rs. 48,000 (loss of crop), Rs. 10,000 (mental agony) and Rs. 2,000 (costs), subject to the interest direction specified in the District Forum's order, as the State Commission's order refusing condonation of delay and the merits were not interfered with.
- The revisional court did not purport to lay down any novel legal principle; it applied existing precedent (National Seeds Corporation Ltd. vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy) and affirmed the allocation of evidentiary onus in the particular factual matrix. No new precedent is recorded in the opinion.
Signed by: M. Shreesha, Presiding Member
IA/5116, 5118, 5120/2017 For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 43 days in filing the Revision Petitions is condoned. The applications stand disposed of. REVISION PETITIONS Challenge in these Revision Petitions is to the order dated 4.10.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad (for short the State Commission) in First Appeal No.961/2016. By the impugned order, the State Commission, while dismissing the Appeals preferred by the Petitioner, did not condone the delay of 214 days observing that there were no substantial reasons given by the Petitioner in his application seeking condonation of delay. Since the facts and point of law involved in these Revision Petitions is same, these are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, RP/1008/2017 is being taken as the lead case. The brief facts, giving rise to the Complaint, are that the Complainant is an agriculturist and purchased two bags of paddy seeds, 76 Kg. per bag, for a total sum of 2,000/- from the Opposite Party. He sowed the seeds in his 6 acres of land and spent an amount of 30,000/- towards fertilizers and pesticides. 30 days after transplantation, the Complainant found that there was no proper growth and informed about the crop loss to the Mandal Agriculture Officer, Mahanandhi. On 28.10.2010, the Mandal Agriculture Officer and Scientists of Acharya Ranga Agricultural University inspected the fields and submitted a report to the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Nandyal. The report revealed 50% off type plants. The inspection was also done in the presence of the Opposite Party and the concerned MRO. It was stated that the Complainant also filed Criminal Complaint against the Opposite Party and an FIR was also lodged. Despite repeated requests, the matter was not settled with respect to payment of compensation and hence, the Complainant approached the District Forum seeking compensation for loss of crop yield, seed cost, expenditure incurred and mental agony. The Opposite Party filed his Written Version stating that the Complaint was not maintainable; he was only an agriculturist and that there is no evidence to prove that the seeds were supplied by them. It was averred that the Complainant had mixed the seeds with other varieties and it was only due to improper crop management that the yield was 50% of the expected yield. Based on the evidence adduced, i.e. the inspection report and also the depositions of the Scientists, who had given the report, the District Forum allowed the Complaint directing the Opposite Party to pay an amount of 48,000/- towards loss of crop; 10,000/- towards mental agony, 2,000/- towards costs to be paid within one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which interest at the rate of 9% p.a was awarded. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, Opposite Party preferred Appeal before the State Commission with a delay of 214 days. The State Commission, while dismissing the Appeal, observed as follows :
12. Coming to his illness, the medical record filed by him does not disclose that he was suffering from any disability worth mentioning. The treatment which he is said to have taken in the Government General Hospital, Kurnool was in December, 2014 and May, 2015 and the treatment taken at Vaishnavi Super specialty Hospital, Kurnool and Harshala Neuro Lab was on 21.2.2015 andIA/5116, 5118, 5120/2017 For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 43 days in filing the Revision Petitions is condoned. The applications stand disposed of. REVISION PETITIONS Challenge in these Revision Petitions is to the order dated 4.10.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad (for short the State Commission) in First Appeal No.961/2016. By the impugned order, the State Commission, while dismissing the Appeals preferred by the Petitioner, did not condone the delay of 214 days observing that there were no substantial reasons given by the Petitioner in his application seeking condonation of delay. Since the facts and point of law involved in these Revision Petitions is same, these are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, RP/1008/2017 is being taken as the lead case. The brief facts, giving rise to the Complaint, are that the Complainant is an agriculturist and purchased two bags of paddy seeds, 76 Kg. per bag, for a total sum of 2,000/- from the Opposite Party. He sowed the seeds in his 6 acres of land and spent an amount of 30,000/- towards fertilizers and pesticides. 30 days after transplantation, the Complainant found that there was no proper growth and informed about the crop loss to the Mandal Agriculture Officer, Mahanandhi. On 28.10.2010, the Mandal Agriculture Officer and Scientists of Acharya Ranga Agricultural University inspected the fields and submitted a report to the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Nandyal. The report revealed 50% off type plants. The inspection was also done in the presence of the Opposite Party and the concerned MRO. It was stated that the Complainant also filed Criminal Complaint against the Opposite Party and an FIR was also lodged. Despite repeated requests, the matter was not settled with respect to payment of compensation and hence, the Complainant approached the District Forum seeking compensation for loss of crop yield, seed cost, expenditure incurred and mental agony. The Opposite Party filed his Written Version stating that the Complaint was not maintainable; he was only an agriculturist and that there is no evidence to prove that the seeds were supplied by them. It was averred that the Complainant had mixed the seeds with other varieties and it was only due to improper crop management that the yield was 50% of the expected yield. Based on the evidence adduced, i.e. the inspection report and also the depositions of the Scientists, who had given the report, the District Forum allowed the Complaint directing the Opposite Party to pay an amount of 48,000/- towards loss of crop; 10,000/- towards mental agony, 2,000/- towards costs to be paid within one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which interest at the rate of 9% p.a was awarded. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, Opposite Party preferred Appeal before the State Commission with a delay of 214 days. The State Commission, while dismissing the Appeal, observed as follows :
12. Coming to his illness, the medical record filed by him does not disclose that he was suffering from any disability worth mentioning. The treatment which he is said to have taken in the Government General Hospital, Kurnool was in December, 2014 and May, 2015 and the treatment taken at Vaishnavi Super specialty Hospital, Kurnool and Harshala Neuro Lab was on 21.2.2015 and 30 March, 2015. These treatments were received long before theth order was passed i.e. on 29.10.2015 and they do not show that the petitioner is still laboring under the effects of the ailments.Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argued that there was no finding by the District Forum on the submission made by them in the written version that the seeds were never supplied by them. He further contended that there was no deficiency in service on their part, as it was never proved in the inspection report that the seeds were defective. It is observed from the record that the Petitioner had never filed any objections to the report of the Scientist; did not file any application under Section 13(1)(c) requesting for the sample seeds to be sent to the appropriate laboratory for testing; did not choose to cross-examine the Scientist who filed an affidavit before the fora below and also deposed before the State Commission. It is observed from the record and also from the letter dated 30.12.2011 issued by the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Nandyal to the Complainant that 19 farmers from the said place made representations to the Joint Director, Kurnool on 22.10.2010. On 28.10.2010, the scientist visited all the 19 fields and submitted in his report that 50% of the seeds were spurious. Dr.Y.Narsimhulu also deposed on 11.2.2015 before the District Forum establishing the relevancy of Exhibit A-14, which is a letter dated 30.12.2011. In his cross-examination, he admitted that this Exhibit was issued by the Agriculture Department. It is pertinent to note that the State Commission had remanded this matter to the District Forum, where equal opportunity was given to both sides to prove their case. Even at this juncture, the Petitioner herein did not file any application under Section 13(1)(c) to send the seeds to an appropriate laboratory for testing. The Honble Apex Court, in National Seeds Corporation Ltd. vs. M.Madhusudhan Reddy (2012) 2 SCC 506 has observed that it is probable that the Complainants have & Anr. sown all the seeds purchased by them and they were not in a position to send the seeds for analysis. In order to prove that the seeds sold to the Complainants were sub-standard/defective, the Petitioner could have sent the sample for testing to the laboratory, which it had failed to do so. No adverse inference can be drawn against the Complainant on the ground of his having not sent the sample of seeds for testing to the laboratory. The Complainant led the evidence of the States Agricultural Department in respect of his case, who also deposed before the District Forum after seeing the crop in the fields. The onus passes on to the Petitioner to prove that the seeds, which were used, were not defective, which he had failed to do so. The State Commission, having gone through the reasons cited for condoning the inordinate delay of 214 days, dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner. I do not see any reason to interfere with the well-considered order of both the fora below, both on the question of not condoning the delay by the State Commission as also on merits. In view of the above, all the Revision Petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs. ...................... M. SHREESHA PRESIDING MEMBER13. The petitioner is said to have undergone eye check up on 8.1.2016 and on 18.4.2016 at Pranav Super Specialty Eye Hospital, Nandyal and at L. V. Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad on 13.6.2016. They are routine check-ups which lasted only a single day.
14. The treatment given to his daughter at LV Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, CARE Banjara, Hyderabad was also a single day treatment on 13.6.2016 and before that for one more day on 9.6.2016 at Pranav Super Specialty Hospital, Nandyal.
15. From the aforesaid medical records it is clear that the complainants ailments were either six months before the order was passed or three months thereafter. There is no plausible explanation given by the appellant for the crucial period from January to April, 2016 except a single day check-up on 8.1.2016.
Alert