Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 12, 23 - Appeal

Con­sumer Pro­tec­tion Act, 1986 — Sec­tions 12, 23 — Appeal — Con­sumer Pro­tec­tion Act, 1986 — Sec­tions 12, 23 — Appeal — Seeds pur­chased by com­plainant were allegedly of sub-standard qual­ity — Find­ing of Dis­trict Forum that due to low yield of crop, com­plainant suf­fered finan­cial loss as well as phys­i­cal harass­ment — National Com­mis­sion held that as the pur­chase of seeds was for com­mer­cial pur­poses, Dis­trict Forum had no juris­dic­tion — Expert com­mit­tee con­sti­tuted by cor­po­ra­tion observed that crop con­di­tion var­ied from sat­is­fac­tory to excel­lent and rea­son for vari­a­tion was other than the qual­ity of seeds — Com­mit­tee, how­ever, expressed sat­is­fac­tion that vari­a­tion in con­di­tion of crop could not be attrib­uted to qual­ity of seeds — con­tention that the word ?not? was unau­tho­ris­edly inserted in the report either to favour the cor­po­ra­tion or to cause prej­u­dice to farm­ers can­not be accepted — National com­mis­sion was not right in observ­ing that the report of expert com­mit­tee was ambigu­ous, which was def­i­nite and spe­cific — State Com­mis­sion and National Com­mis­sion com­mit­ted error of law and of juris­dic­tion in allow­ing the com­plaint — Orders passed by Dis­trict Forum, State Com­mis­sion and National Com­mis­sion set aside — Com­plaint dis­missed — Appeal allowed and the amount deposited by appel­lant ordered to be refunded. To get cita­tion of this judg­ment email link of this post to advppc1@gmail.com

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 12, 23 - Appeal