Back
C. VISWANATH, SUBHASH CHANDRA
Mohan Seeds Company through Its Proprietor – Appellant
Versus
Gurbachan Singh – Respondent
ORDER
Subhash Chandra, Member—This revision petition filed under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order dated 31.08.2012 of the Haryana State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ‘State Commission’) dismissing First Appeal No. 771 of 2011 filed against order dated 04.04.2011 in complaint no. 325 of 2009 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnal (in short, ‘District Forum’).
2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent purchased three bags of seed of paddy metro seeds P-1460 from the petitioner for a consideration of Rs.7200/- i.e. at the rate of Rs.200/- per kg vide bill no. 2245 dated 31.07.2008. The seeds were manufactured by respondent no. 2. The respondent planted the seeds on 11 acres of his land as per directions mentioned on the bag of the seeds. The seeds supplied to the respondent by the petitioner were found to be of inferior/lowest quality. The respondent contacted the Agriculture Department on 12.10.2008 with an application. The Deputy Director, Agriculture, Karnal constituted a committee to assess the loss caused due to the supply of inferior seeds to the respondent. The
(1) Crop Failure - in the normal course, a farmer cannot be expected to retain seeds for use as sample in anticipation of crop failure.(2) Revisional Stage - The contention that the report of the com....
Burden of proof regarding seed quality lies with the respondent, who must provide evidence against claims of defects.
Revisional jurisdiction of National commission – The Court can intervene only when the Petitioner succeeds in showing that the Fora below have wrongly exercised its jurisdiction or there is a miscarr....
(1) ELISHA – The District Forum has also erroneously held that the Agriculture Department officials failed to get an ELISHA test done timely since that test was admittedly not available in 2010-11 in....
Concurrent findings of fact by lower forums are binding unless material irregularities are demonstrated.
Sale of Seeds – Selling the seeds, without mentioning batch number, lot number or tag number, etc., is gross deficiency of services, as well as unfair trade practice.
(1) Burden of Proof on Manufacturer – In cases alleging defective seeds, the burden lies strictly on the seed manufacturer to produce samples of the disputed batch for expert analysis under Section 1....
(1) Burden of Proof for Defective Goods – The primary onus lies on the complainant to prove that the seeds supplied were defective or spurious. In cases involving seeds, the absence of a recognized l....
“Seeds hold to farmers since found not of high quality amounts to deficiency in service.”
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
