NCDRC NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3282 OF 2003 (From the order dated 7.8..2003 in Appeal No.135/99 of the State Commission, A.P.) M. Subba Rao Prop. M/s. Sri Krishna Seeds, D.No.19-98-2, Kasturibai Road, Chilakaluripet 522 616, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh Petitioner Versus Avula Venkata Reddy, S/o Sita Reddy, Elchuru Village, Santhamavaluru Mandal, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh Respondent BEFORE : HONBLE MR.JUSTICE M.B. SHAH, PRESIDENT MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. G. Ramakrishna Prasad & Mr. B. Suyodhan, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. Nitin S. Tambwekar and Mr. B.S. Sai, Advocates Dated : 22.03.2007 ORDER
Heard the Learned
Counsel for the parties. This Revision
Petition is filed against the judgement and order dated 7th August, 2003 passed by the A.P.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal No.135 of 1999 by which
the order passed by the District Forum is confirmed. The District Forum by its order dated 25th February, 1999 directed the
Petitioner to pay a compensation of Rs.7,500/- for
sale of defective chilli seeds to the Complainant. The State Commission also considered the fact
that there was sufficient evidence on record to establish that Complainant had
purchased the seeds from the Petitioner.
The District Forum as well as the State Commission arrived at the
conclusion that the yield of the chilli crop was not
as per the advertisement or brochure.
Against that judgement, this Revision Petition is filed by the dealer.
Considering the findings of fact recorded by
the District Forum and the State Commission, it is apparent that seeds supplied
by the Petitioner were defective and that the Complainant has suffered the loss
because the yield was minimum and not as per the brochure.
However, Learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the Petitioner submits that Petitioner is a dealer and he is not
personally liable for defective seeds and therefore order ought not to
have been passed against him without joining manufacturing firm as party,
namely, Hindustan Seeds Corporation.
In our view, no doubt, the
manufacturer would have been a proper party but at the same time the Petitioner
is a person who has supplied and sold the seeds to the Complainant, therefore,
complaint was maintainable against the Petitioner. If Petitioner has any grievance, it is open
to the Petitioner to recover the amount
ordered from the manufacturer by filing appropriate proceedings, but it
cannot be said that the Petitioner, a dealer, who has sold the seeds, is not liable.
Lastly, Learned Counsel for the
Petitioner submits that there was no question of directing the Petitioner to
pay the interest @12% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of payment.
It
is also to be stated that as per the interim order, in all, Petitioner has
deposited Rs.11,800/-. The amount deposited by the Petitioner with the District
Forum shall be considered as full and final payment to the Complainant. It would be open to the Complainant tp withdraw the same if not withdrawn.
Considering
this aspect, in
our view, impugned
order passed by the
State Commission does not call
for any modification.
In the result, Revision Petition
stands disposed of accordingly. There
shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
J.
(M.B. SHAH)
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
(RAJYALAKSHMI RAO)
MEMBER
P/20