IA No. 17817 of 2018

          Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the averments made in the Application, seeking condonation of delay of 13 days in filing the Petition.

          The cause shown in the Application is sufficient.  Accordingly, the delay is condoned.

          The Application stands disposed of.

Revision Petition

          Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the impugned order, passed by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), by which the Appeal, preferred by the Petitioner herein, has been dismissed and the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Medak at Sangareddy (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) has been affirmed.

          The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there was no material on record so as to allow the Complaint and direct payment of ₹2,26,500/- towards crop loss and grant compensation of ₹60,000/- to the contesting Respondent herein.

          The submission is wholly misconceived.  The State Commission, while upholding the order of the District Forum, has recorded the following findings:

“16)     It is very pertinent to mention here that it is not the case of the appellant that the seed under question is not the produce made by them.  From the perusal of Ex.B2 to B5, it can safely be inferred that the disputed seed is the produce made by the appellant. Though the appellant invariably denied the loss stated to have been sustained by the Respondent No.1, it failed to whisper anything as to visiting of the fields of the Respondent No.1 by them along with the officials of the Respondent No.2 and 3.  The appellant, repeatedly denied that there is no proof of purchase and date of sowing the seeds in the fields.  Admittedly, the District Level Committee headed by 1) Joint Director of Agriculture, Medak at Sangareddy, 2) Assistant Director of Agriculture, Siddipet, 3) Assistant Director of Horticulture, Medak at Siddipet, 4) Agriculture Officer, Siddipet and 5) Horticulture Officer, Siddipet have not only visited the agricultural field of the Respondent No.1 but also various other farmers and have concluded the nature of loss as “unacceptable fruit shape and fruit quality” resulting in loss to the tune of Rs.2,26,500/-.” 

The aforesaid finding is based on appreciation of evidence and material on record.  It cannot be said that the said finding suffers from any material irregularity, warranting interference in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction. 

The Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly.