- (1.) The appellant-Company, aggrieved by the summary dismissal of its Revision Petition No. 225 of 1993 on 27/7/1993 by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, has filed this appeal by special leave.
(2.) Respondents 1 and 2 moved the District Forum, Cuddapah, in Consumer Dispute No. 441 of 1991, complaining that the sunflower seeds produced by the appellant and sold through the third respondent, on sowing, did not germinate by reason of defects in the seeds. They claimed, apart from the cost of the seeds, a compensation of Rs 5,000. 00 per acre from the appellant. The claim was resisted, inter alia, contending that the Seeds Act, 1966 and the Rules framed thereunder being a complete Code, provides remedies to the aggrieved party and, therefore, the complaint preferred before the District Forum was not maintainable. It was also contended that the test to find out the correctness of the complaint regarding defective seeds as provided under Section 13 (l) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has not been adopted and without that, the appellant cannot be held liable for compensation. It was further contended that the complainants are not consumers inasmuch as the purchase of the seeds itself was for growing the sunflower plants for commercial purpose. The District Forum, on a consideration of the materials placed before it, held that the appellant wasliable to pay compensation at the rate of Rs 2,000. 00 per acre in addition to the cost of the seeds.
(3.) Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the appellant-Company preferred an appeal before the State Commission, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. The State Commission elaborately considered the contentions raised before it and ultimately affirmed the order of the District Forum. The further revision before the National Forum, as noticed above, was dismissed summarily.;