K. Venkataswami JUDGMENT
K. Venkataswami, J.
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 5000 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(1)(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 was liable to pay compensation at the rate of Rs 2000 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.
4. We would have appreciated the National Forum, had it discussed the matter on merits and disposed of the same after considering the question of law raised before it. Unfortunately, the National Forum has summarily dismissed the revision petition. The question of law raised, namely, whether Respondents 1 and 2 were justified in moving the Consumer Forum for redressal on the facts of the case, is not free from doubt. However, we do not consider it necessary to decide that question of law in this case as the findings of the State Commission on facts stare at the appellant, which cannot be lightly brushed aside. The State Commission, on the materials placed before it, found as follows:
"In this case, the complainants alleged that they have purchased the seeds from the opposite parties. To this extent, there is no dispute. According to the complainants, they purchased the seeds and sowed them. The Agricultural Officer reported to the first opposite party on 22-11-1991 through a letter which mentioned that he sent the ryots of Lingual to them to purchase the sunflower seeds on permits. But those seeds have not germinated and that he personally went and saw. He therefore wrote the above letter asking the opposite parties to give compensation to them. It was further mentioned that they would be visiting the place on 27th. But they have not visited the place. To th........