Shivaraj V. Patil, J. - (1.) The appellant approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short the District Forum) by complaining that he purchased 10 bags of paddy seeds from the respondent @ 135 per bag for the purpose of sowing and transplanting the seedlings to raise paddy in 7 acres of his land. When he sowed the seeds in the nursery, they did not germinate properly. He made complaint to the respondent; the respondent deputed the Agricultural Extension Officer to inspect the land and to submit his report about the quality of the seeds supplied to the appellant; the said Officer having inspected the spot, reported that the germination was hardly upto 10 to 20% : having received the report, the respondent addressed a letter to the Marketing Officer, National Seed Corporation, Mysore, stating that on account of substandard paddy seeds sold to the appellant, the appellant had to leave 7 acres of his land fallow and uncultivated and that the National Seed Corporation was liable to make good the loss. The National Seed Corporation, in spite of the request of the respondent, did not depute any technical expert to inspect the spot for assessment. According to the appellant, in the normal course, he would have received 50 quintals of paddy from 7 acres of his land, the value of the same would have been Rs. 15,750/- calculated at the lowest rate prevailing at the relevant time. He, therefore, claimed a sum of Rs. 17, 100/- with consequential reliefs from the respondent. The only defence of the respondent was that the National Seed Corporation, which supplied the paddy seeds, was directly responsible for making good the loss and it should have been made party to the proceedings and that the respondent was not responsible to make good the loss. It was not disputed that the respondent had sold paddy seeds @ 135/- per bag to the appellant. The District Forum on admitted facts held that the respondent was a "trader" in relation to the appellant. Both the parties filed respective affidavits before the District forum and the appellant, in addition, produced two documents in support of his claim. The District Forum noticed that the statement made in the affidavit of the appellant, that he could not raise and harvest paddy in 7 acres of his land due to non-germination of the seeds purchased by him, was not denied by the respondent; the respondent had only pleaded his ignorance as to whether the appellant had to leave 7 acres of his land uncultivated. Having considered the contentions of the parties and the material placed before it, the District Forum directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 17,500/- to the appellant by way of refunding of the price of the paddy seeds and damages caused to him as a result of the transaction. A further direction was given to pay Rs. 100/- as cost to the appellant.
(2.) The respondent took up the matter in appeal before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State Commission). The State Commission concurred with the findings recorded by the District Forum but modified the order of the District Forum directing the respondent to pay and refund a sum of Rs. 1,350/-, the price of the seeds, to the appellant with interest thereon at 18% per annum from the date of its purchase. The State Commission also awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation to the appellant. The reason for modifying the amount of compensation to be paid to the appellant is to be seen in Paragraph 7 of the order of the State Commission which reads :- "7. The germination of the paddy seeds in the nursery takes place within a period of 8-10 days after its sowing. Therefore, the complainant would be able to know whether it was a proper germination or not within a period of 10-12 days. When the complainant had come to know about that there was no proper germination, he would have purchased some other seeds and put it in the nursery and transplanted the same in his land, which he has not done. Simply because the complainant did not take crop in his land due to substandard seeds, it cannot be said that it was due to any act on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party, of course is liable for refunding the value of the seeds to the complainant and also certain amount of compensation for sowing it in the nursery."
(3.) Aggrieved by and not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, the appellant filed a revision petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the National Commission). The said Commission summarily dismissed the revision petition observing that it did not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission. Hence, this appeal.;