STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA `
AT HYDERABAD
R.P. No. 10 of 2016
Against
Against orders in IA 78 of 2015 in CC 31 of 2015
District Forum, Warangal
Between :
M/s.Nova Agri Tech Pvt. Ltd
Its Administrative office at
Plot no. 5, Second floor,
Vittalnagar, New bowenpalli,
Secunderabad – 11
Rep. by its Branch Manager/
authorized Signatory .. Petitioner/Respondent/Opp.party no.1
and
- Roopireddy Krishna Reddy,
S/o Sri Pratap Reddy,
Age : 40 years, Occ : Agriculture,
R/o H.No.12-209/5, Torrur village and Mandal
Warangal District . Respondent/petitioner/complainant
- M/s. Parth Poly Woven Pvt. Ltd.
Rep. by its Managing Director
Its office at Plot nos. 1601 and 1602,
GIDC –II, Sabalpoor, Junagadh,
Gujarat – 03 .. Respondent/Respondent/Opp.No.2.
Counsel for the Revision Petitioner : M/s. V. Sethu Madhava Rao.
Counsel for the respondents : M/s. M. Ajay Kumar for R-1
R2- served
Coram :
Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N. Rao Nalla … President
And
Sri Patil ithal Rao .. Member
Tuesday, the Twentieth Day of February
Two Thousand Eighteen
Oral order : ( Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.RaoNalla, Hon’ble President )
*****
- This is a Revision petition filed Under Section 17 (i) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to set aside the impugned order dated 01.04.2016 passed in IA No. 78/2015 in CC 31 and 2015 on the file of the District Forum, Warangal.
- For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the Forum below.
- The facts of the case in brief are that the first respondent/ complainant in CC 31/2015 filed IA 78 of 2015 before the District Forum to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect and note down the physical features of the material NoVa Mulch 25 mm and also the old Nova Mulch 25 mm in the filed of the petitioner’s Lily garden at Thorrur Village. On the other hand, the petitioner/1st opposite party and 2nd opposite party therein rebutted the same contending that the advocate Commissioner cannot record the status of the sheets at a very belated stage when they were laid on 06.05.2014 since the sheets can be subjected to wear and tear due atmospheric conditions and negligence of the petitioner as it will show the status of the present day.
- After hearing both sides, the District Forum allowed the petition in appointing the advocate Commissioner on the ground that it will know the ground realities pertaining to the quality of the goods in question.
- Aggrieved by the said order, the first opposite party preferred Revision, relying on the Judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in Yogendra builders and another Vs. Vidya Paradis Owners Welfare reported in AIR, 2008 AP 31, contended that the District Forum is not vested with jurisdiction to appoint an advocate Commissioner to local inspection and note down the physical features on the ground that Nova Mulch sheets were laid in the fields of Respondent No.1 for more than two years back in June, 2014 and already two agriculture harvesting seasons have been completed and the sheets would be damaged due to various reasons and the Advocate Commissioner is not a technical/competent person.
- Keeping in view the principle laid down in the above Judgement by Our Hon’ble High Court, we are of the opinion that the District Forum has no power to appoint an Advocate Commissioner since he is not competent to note down the physical features as he is not technical expert and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
- In the result, the Revision petition is allowed setting aside the Order dated 01.04.2016 in IA No. 78 of 2015 in CC 31 of 2015 on the file of the District Forum, Warangal.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
DATED :- 20.02.2018.
