H.N. SHANKARA SHASTRY versus THE ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, KARNATAKA

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 406 · Decided: 06-05-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
H.N. SHANKARA SHASTRY 
V. 
THE ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, KARNATAKA 
MAY 6, 2004 
B 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 14(1) : 
Consumer filed a complaint against seller for selling sub-standard 
C quality of seeds which has resulted in loss/damage to him-District Forum 
directed the seller to refund price of the seeds and also damages-State 
Commission modified the order directing the seller to refund the actual 
price of the seeds with interest thereon-Revision Petition dismissed by 
National Commission-On appeal, Held: since object of enactment of the 
D Act was to better protect the interest of the consumer, provision of the Act 
ought to be interpreted accordingly in a rational manner to realize the 
objective-Since the complainant had established that seeds so supplied 
by the seller were defective, State Commission committed an error by 
modifj;ing the well-reas<>ned order of the District Forum deleting therefrom 
E the compensation towards damages on ground that the complainant did 
not take appropriate steps to avoid the loss without any factslpleading-
Hence, order of the State Commission/National Commission set aside and 
that of the District Forum restored. 
F 
Complainant-consumer purchased paddy seeds from the 
respondent-State for the purpose of sowing and transplanting the 
seeding to raise paddy in the land. However, the seeds did not 
germinate properly. He made a complaint to the respondent, who 
deputed an Officer to inspect the land and submit a report. The Officer 
reported that the germination was hardly 10 to 20 percent. Respondent 
G in turn informed the National Seeds Corporation, the supplier of the 
seeds, about loss suffered by the consumer on account of supply of sub-
standard quality seeds and that the National Seeds Corporation was 
liable to make good the loss suffered by the consumer. The National 
Seeds Corporation did not respond. The consumer filed a complaint 
H against the seller under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 
406 
H.N. SHANKARA SHASTRY v. ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE 407 
claiming refund of price and also compensation. The District Forum A 
directed the respondents to refund the price of the seeds and also 
certain amount as compensation. On appeal, State Commission modified 
the order directing the respondent to refund the price of the seeds with 
interest thereon. It, however, deleted the amount of the compensation 
on the ground that the consumer did not take appropriate steps to B 
avoid such loss. The consumer filed a Revision Petition which was 
dismissed by the National Commission. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I.I. The State Commission committed a serious error c 
in its approach in expecting the appellant to take steps to avoid loss 
to him even though the goods supplied by the respondent were 
defective. The approach of the State Commission was merely theoretical 
and not reasonable, there being no supporting facts or pleadings in that 
regard. (411-B-C] 
D 
1.2. Under Section 14(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, 
if the District Forum is satisfied that the goods complained against 
suffer from any defect, it could grant reliefs which include return of 
the price of goods and also compensation to the consumer for any loss E 
suffered. Granting of relief to the consumer does not depend upon 
whether he should have made alternative arrangement. In the present 
case, it was enough for the appellant to establish that the paddy seeds 
supplied by the respondent were defective. (411-F-G] 
F 
1.3. The State Commission has not kept in mind the very object 
of the Act which was enacted to better protect the interest to the 
consumers. The Act is one of the benevolent pieces of legislation 
intended to protect a large body of consumers from exploitation. The 
provisions of the Act ought to be interpreted in a rational manner for G 
achieving the objective set forth in the Act. (411-H; 412-A] 
Secretary, Thirumurugan, Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. 
M Lalitha (Dead) through L.Rs. & Ors., (2004] 1 SCC 305 and Lucknow 
Development Authority v. MK. Gupta, (1994] 1 SCC 243, relied on. 
H 
408 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
1.4. The preamble of the Act can afford useful assistance to 
ascertain the legislative intention. The Consumer Protection Act was 
enacted 'to provide for the protection of the interest of consumers'. Use 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.