Advantage Consumer

	advantageconsumer.com Consumer Protection Council, Rourkela

	DuPont penalised for selling defective weedicide and pulled up for delaying payment of compensation. NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3975 OF 2013 (Against the Order dated 11/12/2012 in Appeal No. 572/2007 & 23/2013 of the State Commission Maharashtra) E.I DUPONT INDIA PVT. LTD. 7TH FLOOR,TOWER-C , DLF CYBER GREENS, SECTOR 25-A DLF CITY PHASE III, GURGAON. HARYANA- 122002 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus DEVIDAS KISHTA REDDY GANGULWAR & 4 ORS. R/O MANDVA TAH, ZARI JAMANI DISTRICT : YAVATMAL MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. REKHA GUPTA, MEMBER Dated : 07 Jan 2016 ORDER This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Maharashtra, Circuit Bench at Nagpur dated 11.12.2012 as also 19.07.2013. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of the revision petition are that in the year 2006 respondents raised a consumer dispute alleging that they were supplied a defective weedicide manufactured by the petitioner company, as a consequence of which their crop got destroyed. The complaint was contested on merits. The District Forum vide order dated 24.04.2007 allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner and other opposite parties as under: “1. The complainant nos. 1 to 3’s complaint is allowed against Opponent No. 1 & 3 partly. The Opponent No.2 is discharged from the same. 2. The opponent no. 1 & 3 have to jointly pay an amount of Rs.8,000/- to complainant no.1 and 24,000 each to complainant no. 2 & 3. This amount is to be paid within 30 days from the date of this order. Otherwise the opponents will be liable to pay interest on the same @ 9% from the date of the order 05.12.2006. 3. The Opponents No. 1 & 3 will pay an amount of 5000 per head to all the 2 complainants for mental harassment. And 500 per head as legal expenses.” 3. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the petitioner preferred an appeal in the State Commission, being appeal No. A/07/372. The appeal remained pending with the State Commission till December 2012 and ultimately vide order dated 11.12.2012, it was dismissed in default for non-appearance of the petitioner or his counsel. Relevant order is reproduced as under: “None for appellant is present. Its counsel Shri Khare is also absent. Adv. Shri Sonbhadre for Respondents 1 to 3 is present. However, none for respondent 4 & 5 is present. On last date also Appellant as well as his counsel were absent. However, the mater was adjourned till today by way of last chance, but today also the appellant did not turn up. Hence the appeal deserves to be dismissed in default. Hence it be recalled at 3.00 p.m. for order. Matter is recalled at 3.35 p.m. However, none for appellant is present. Adv. Shri Sonbhadre for respondents 1 to 3 is present. Hence the appeal deserves to be dismissed in default. No order as to costs. “ 4. Being aggrieved of the dismissal of the appeal, the petitioner moved an application for setting aside of the said order. The application, however, was dismissed vide order dated 19.07.2013 in view of the finding of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karkar & Anr. 2011 (9) SCC 541, wherein it was held that District Forums and State Commissions have no jurisdictioin to review their own order. This resulted in filing of the revision petition. 5. From the aforesaid sequence of events, it is clear that respondents had raised consumer dispute in the year 2006. The complaint was decided in their favour on 24.04.2007 whereby petitioner and the other opposite parties were directed to pay to the complainant no.1 a sum of Rs.8000/- and complainant no. 2 & 3 a sum of Rs.24,000/- each as compensation for loss of their crop besides Rs. 5000/- each for mental harassment and Rs.500/- each as legal expenses. The petitioner who is a Multinational Company, instead of complying with the order dragged the complainants in appeal which was not properly pursued. As a result, respondent complainants have been deprived of the fruits of the award passed in their favour for almost eight years. 6. Coming to the impugned order dated 11.12.2012. On reading of this order, which is reproduced above, it is clear that State Commission has given long rope to the petitioner. The petitioner or his counsel did not appear on two consecutive dates of hearing, and, therefore, after about six years of pendency of appeal, the State Commission was constrained to dismiss the appeal in default. We do not find fault with the aforesaid approach adopted by the State Commission particularly when under the scheme of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 consumer disputes are supposed to be decided at the earliest and if possible, within three months. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. Top

DuPont penalised for selling defective weedicide and pulled up for delaying payment of compensation.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO. 3975 OF 2013
(Against the Order dated 11/12/2012 in Appeal No. 572/2007 & 23/2013 of the State Commission Maharashtra)

E.I DUPONT INDIA PVT. LTD.
7TH FLOOR,TOWER-C , DLF CYBER GREENS, SECTOR 25-A DLF CITY PHASE III,
GURGAON. HARYANA- 122002 ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
DEVIDAS KISHTA REDDY GANGULWAR & 4 ORS.
R/O MANDVA TAH, ZARI JAMANI
DISTRICT : YAVATMAL
MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER
    HON'BLE MRS. REKHA GUPTA, MEMBER

Dated : 07 Jan 2016

ORDER

     This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Maharashtra, Circuit Bench at Nagpur dated 11.12.2012 as also 19.07.2013.

2.         Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of the revision petition are that in the year 2006 respondents raised a consumer dispute alleging that they were supplied a defective weedicide manufactured by the petitioner company, as a consequence of which their crop got destroyed. The complaint was contested on merits. The District Forum vide order dated 24.04.2007 allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner and other opposite parties as under:

“1.        The complainant nos. 1 to 3’s complaint is allowed against Opponent No. 1 & 3 partly. The Opponent No.2 is discharged from the same.

2.         The opponent no. 1 & 3 have to jointly pay an amount of Rs.8,000/- to complainant no.1 and 24,000 each to complainant no. 2 & 3. This amount is to be paid within 30 days from the date of this order. Otherwise the opponents will be liable to pay interest on the same @ 9% from the date of the order 05.12.2006.

3.         The Opponents No. 1 & 3 will pay an amount of 5000 per head to all the 2 complainants for mental harassment. And 500 per head as legal expenses.”

3.         Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the petitioner preferred an appeal in the State Commission, being appeal No. A/07/372. The appeal remained pending with the State Commission till December 2012 and ultimately vide order dated 11.12.2012, it was dismissed in default for non-appearance of the petitioner or his counsel. Relevant order is reproduced as under:

“None for appellant is present. Its counsel Shri Khare is also absent. Adv. Shri Sonbhadre for Respondents 1 to 3 is present. However, none for respondent 4 & 5 is present. On last date also Appellant as well as his counsel were absent. However, the mater was adjourned till today by way of last chance, but today also the appellant did not turn up. Hence the appeal deserves to be dismissed in default. Hence it be recalled at 3.00 p.m. for order. Matter is recalled at 3.35 p.m. However, none for appellant is present. Adv. Shri Sonbhadre for respondents 1 to 3 is present. Hence the appeal deserves to be dismissed in default.

No order as to costs. “

4.         Being aggrieved of the dismissal of the appeal, the petitioner moved an application for setting aside of the said order. The application, however, was dismissed vide order dated 19.07.2013 in view of the finding of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karkar & Anr. 2011 (9) SCC 541, wherein it was held that District Forums and State Commissions have no jurisdictioin to review their own order. This resulted in filing of the revision petition.

5.         From the aforesaid sequence of events, it is clear that respondents had raised consumer dispute in the year 2006. The complaint was decided in their favour on 24.04.2007 whereby petitioner and the other opposite parties were directed to pay to the complainant no.1 a sum of Rs.8000/- and complainant no. 2 & 3 a sum of Rs.24,000/- each as compensation for loss of their crop besides Rs. 5000/- each for mental harassment and Rs.500/- each as legal expenses. The petitioner who is a Multinational Company, instead of complying with the order dragged the complainants in appeal which was not properly pursued. As a result, respondent complainants have been deprived of the fruits of the award passed in their favour for almost eight years.

6.         Coming to the impugned order dated 11.12.2012. On reading of this order, which is reproduced above, it is clear that State Commission has given long rope to the petitioner. The petitioner or his counsel did not appear on two consecutive dates of hearing, and, therefore, after about six years of pendency of appeal, the State Commission was constrained to dismiss the appeal in default. We do not find fault with the aforesaid approach adopted by the State Commission particularly when under the scheme of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 consumer disputes are supposed to be decided at the earliest and if possible, within three months.

Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.