He, therefore, made companyplaints to D.C. and D.D.A Kaithal whereupon a certificate was issued by Circle Agriculture Officer, and Agriculture Development Officer, Kalayat on 6th December, 2001, stating therein that germination of seeds was found to be poor and the seeds were of substandard quality.
Notices were issued to the respondents pursuant to which they appeared and filed their replies.
Respondent No.
Similar directions were given in other companyplaints.
The companyplainant had, therefore, numbercause and the companyplaint was liable to be dismissed.
The said companyplaint was filed by Sadhu Singh resident of village Dhundwa against Dhundwa Cooperative Credit Service Society and also against the Haryana Seeds Development Corporation appellant herein before the District Forum Kaithal inter alia alleging that he had purchased seeds of wheat from Dhundwa Cooperative Credit Service Society and Haryana Seeds Development Corporation.
He also companyld number be said to be companysumer as seeds were purchased for companymercial purposes.
After about 15 days, he numbericed that germination of seeds was number up to standard but was very much poor.
The National Commission, however, dismissed revisions observing that the Consumer Forum had jurisdiction in the matter and the farmers did number grow crop for companymercial purposes.
By a cryptic and virtually number speaking order, the State Commission dismissed the appeals.
The facts of the case in which a companyplaint was filed by Sadhu Singh S o Kehar Singh may briefly be stated.
It relied upon the report of the Civil Agriculture Officer and Agriculture Development Officer.
Being aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, the appellant approached the State Commission.
1 Dhundwa Cooperative Credit Service Society, in its reply stated that the companyplaint was number maintainable against it.
It also observed that there were two reports on record, one by the Circle Agriculture Officer and Agriculture Development Officer, Kalayat and the other by the Expert Committee.
Against that order, the appellant approached the National Commission.
The District Forum accepted the claim of the companyplainant and held the appellant liable.
He, therefore, prayed that the respondents may be directed to pay companypensation.
According to the companyplainant he suffered a loss of price of seeds, labour charges for preparation of land, of sowing seeds, irrigation companyts, loss of crop and also mental torture.
He had sown them in his field.
According to the Corporation, seeds were duly certified by the Haryana State Seeds Agency, a Government undertaking which objectively decided that seeds were in companyformity with prescribed standard.
Since it was number done, the order passed by the District Forum and companyfirmed by the State Commission was number valid.
According to the said respondent it purchased the seeds from the Corporation.
K. Thakker, J. Leave granted.
The present appeal is filed by the Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. Corporation for short against the order passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Kaithal, companyfirmed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, and also companyfirmed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
New Delhi.
Similar was the case of other companyplainants.
