Burden of Proof on Farmer to Prove Seeds Were Expired or Defective; Seller Not Liable Without Concrete Evidence: Rajasthan State Consumer Commission - 2025-09-01

State Consumer Commission Overturns Order Against Seed Seller, Cites Farmer's Failure to Prove Defect

JODHPUR: The Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has overturned a District Commission order that held a seed seller liable for crop failure, ruling that the burden of proof to establish that the seeds were expired or of inferior quality lies squarely with the complainant farmer. The Commission, presided over by Justice Devendra Kachhawaha, observed that a seller cannot be held responsible for poor yield based on mere allegations without concrete evidence like the original seed packaging or expert analysis.

The bench allowed the appeal filed by Jagdish, a seed vendor, against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jodhpur II, which had directed him to compensate farmer Ganpatram for crop loss.

Background of the Dispute

The case dates back to June 2009 when Ganpatram purchased six bags of millet (bajra) seeds from Jagdish's store, Shriram Khad Beej Bhandar. The farmer alleged that despite assurances of a high-yield hybrid variety, the crop failed as the millet cobs did not develop any grains. He claimed the seller had deliberately sold him inferior and expired seeds, constituting a deficiency in service.

The District Commission had twice ruled in favor of the farmer. In its final order dated March 25, 2021, it held the seller liable, primarily on the grounds that he sold expired seeds. This conclusion was based on a bill from a separate transaction with another farmer, where an expiry date of May 2009 was mentioned for seeds purchased in June 2009.

Seller's Arguments

In his appeal before the State Commission, Jagdish contended that:

- The farmer failed to provide any direct evidence, such as the seed bags with the expiry date printed on them, to prove the seeds were expired.

- The crop failure could be attributed to improper farming practices, including sowing an excessive quantity of seeds, which he claimed stunted plant growth.

- The law does not mandate printing the expiry date on the sales bill.

- The seed variety was certified by the Central Government and the Gujarat State Seed Certification Agency, shifting liability to the manufacturer for any quality defects, not the retailer.

- A police complaint filed by the farmer on the same issue had been dismissed as false.

Commission's Reasoning and Key Findings

The State Commission meticulously analyzed the evidence and arguments, arriving at several key conclusions that led to the overturning of the lower forum's decision.

"The primary burden of proof was on the complainants themselves to prove that the seed sold to them was past its expiry date (EXP. DATE), and for this, the seed bag, on which the expiry date is generally written, should have been presented," the Commission stated.

The bench found that the District Commission had erred in shifting the burden of proof onto the seller. It noted the absence of crucial evidence from the farmer's side:

- No Expert Evidence: The farmer did not present any expert testimony or lab analysis to prove that seeds expiring in May 2009 would become completely ineffective by June 2009.

- No Seed Samples: No seed samples or original packaging were produced before the Commission to verify the batch number or expiry date.

- Multiple Factors for Crop Failure: The Commission acknowledged that crop yield depends on various factors beyond seed quality, including soil condition, irrigation, and fertilizer application. It held that the seller could not be solely blamed without ruling out these other possibilities.

Furthermore, the Commission highlighted that the dispute involved complex questions of fact and allegations of fraud, which are better suited for adjudication by a competent civil court where detailed evidence and cross-examination can take place.

Final Decision and Implications

The State Commission set aside the District Commission's order dated March 25, 2021, and allowed the seller's appeal. However, it granted liberty to the farmer, Ganpatram, to file a suit for damages in a competent civil court. The Commission directed that the time spent pursuing the case in the consumer forums should be excluded for the purpose of the limitation period, as per Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

This judgment reinforces the legal principle that in consumer disputes alleging product defects, the complainant must provide substantial and direct evidence to support their claim. It clarifies that in cases of alleged defective seeds, the failure to preserve and present the original packaging or a sample for testing can be fatal to the consumer's case.