G. S. Singhvi, J.—Leave granted in SLP (C) Nos.32750 of 2009 and 35350 of 2009.

2. Appellant – M/s. National Seeds Corporation Ltd. (NSCL) is a Government of India company. Its main functions are to arrange for production of quality seeds of different varieties in the farms of registered growers and supply the same to the farmers. The respondents own lands in different districts of Andhra Pradesh and are engaged in agriculture/seed production. They filed complaints with the allegation that they had suffered loss due to failure of the crops/less yield because the seeds sold/supplied by the appellant were defective. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums, Kurnool, Mehboob Nagar, Guntur, Khamman and Kakinada allowed the complaints and awarded compensation to the respondents. The appeals and the revisions filed by the appellant were dismissed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, ‘the State Commission’) and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission respectively.

3. The appellant has questioned the orders of the National Commission, which also implies its challenge to the orders of the State Commission and the District Forums mainly on the following grounds:

(a) the District Forums did not have the jurisdiction to entertain complaints filed by the respondents because the issues relating to the quality of seeds are governed by the provisions contained in the Seeds Act, 1966 (for short, ‘the Seeds Act’) and any complaint about the sale or supply of defective seeds can be filed only under the Seeds Act and not under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Consumer Act’).

(b) the District Forums could not have adjudicated upon the complaints filed by the respondents and awarded compensation to them without following the procedure prescribed under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Act.

(c) the growers of seeds, who had entered into agreements with it, are not covered by the definition of ‘consumer’ under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Act because they had purchased the seeds for commercial purpose.

4. For the sake of convenience, we may advert to the facts leading to the passing of orders by three Consumer Forums, which have been impugned in Civil Appeal Nos. 7543 of 42004, 3499 of 2009 and 4519 of 2009. We may also mention that in their complaints the respondents had impleaded the officers of the appellant as parties but for the purpose of this judgment we shall only refer to them as the appellant.

Civil Appeal No.7543 of 2004

5.1 Respondents M. Madhusudan Reddy and K. Rambhupal Reddy claim to have purchased 46 kg. of KBSH-1 Sunflower seeds from Area Manager of the appellant at Kurnool. They undertook cultivation by adopting the recognized modes of preparing the field and irrigation and also used the prescribed fertilizer but there was germination only in 60% seeds and the height of the plants was uneven. The germination in the remaining 40% plants was slow. Not only this, flowering did not take place simultaneously. At the request of the respondents, Area Manager of the appellant inspected their field on 19.11.1999. He is said to have agreed that there was less germination and the growth of the plants was uneven, but declined to give any assurance for payment of compensation.

5.2 Dissatisfied with the response of the Area Manager, the respondents filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Act and prayed for award of compensation of Rs.1,79,505/- towards the cost of seeds, fertilizer and pesticides and value of the lost crop with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum by alleging that they did not get the expected yield because the seeds sold by the appellant were defective.

5.3 In the reply filed on behalf of the appellant, it was pleaded that the seeds were purchased by respondent no. 1 alone and there was no evidence of joint cultivation by the respondents. The appellant denied that the seeds were defective and pleaded that respondent No. 1 did not