Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT NEW DELHI
Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member and
AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM (Retd.), Member
Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Ltd. – Petitioner
versus
Bhukya Bhadru and Ors. – Respondents
Revision Petition Nos.937, 952, 960, 964, 966, 968, 977, 978, 979, 984, 988, 990, 998, 938, 942, 943, 953, 958, 967, 974, 976, 985, 997, 993, 994, 995, 996, 999, 1000, 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1010, 1011, 1012, 1013, 1014, 1101, 959, 961, 962, 963, 965, 1103, 975, 969, 980, 970, 1102, 971, 981, 982, 983, 986, 987, 972, 973, 1107, 992, 1108, 1106, 939, 940, 941, 944, 945, 1105, 946, 1104, 948, 949, 951, 989, 991, 950, 954, 955, 956, 947, 957 of 2023
Decided on 13.3.2025

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. T.S. Ahuja and Mr. Ramkrishna Rao, Advocates
For the Respondents:Mr. Rana Sandeep Bussa, Ms. Arti Sharma and Ms. Tanya Sharma, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINTS
(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 India.
(2) Government – It is manifest that the order of the District Forum suffers from the material irregularity of having concluded that the sale of the Laya Bt 2 cotton seeds was without requisite approvals of Government.

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58] – Seeds – Defective – Whether the seeds in question had an inherent manufacturing as concluded by the District Forum and whether this was established as required under the Act – It is manifest that the order of the District Forum suffers from the material irregularity of having concluded that the sale of the Laya Bt 2 cotton seeds was without requisite approvals of Government. It has also erred in not following the procedure under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act while holding that the opposite parties (appellants herein) failed to take recourse to its provisions. Admittedly, there is no expert opinion from an authorized laboratory to certify the genetic purity of the seeds. While it could not have been expected of the respondent to provide the seeds for such a test in the absence of such a report, the finding of manufacturing defect in the seeds is not justifiable. 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 India. Lastly, the finding of deficiency in service by the District Forum without any cogent evidence to establish it as mandated under the Act, cannot be sustained and is consequently held to be based on surmises and conjectures which cannot be justified. [Paras 10 to 16]
Result: Petition allowed.

ORDER

Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member—This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act’) challenging order dated 20.12.2022 of the Telangana State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Vijayawada (in short, the ‘State Commission’) dismissing Appeal Nos. FA 682 of 2019 and FA 273 of 2020, vide order dated 20.12.2022 and confirming the order of the District Forum, Warangal in Consumer Complaint No. 8 of 2012 dated 27.06.2019.

2. This order will also dispose of Revision Petition Nos.938 to 1014 of 2023 and 1101 to 1108 of 2023 which emanate from similar orders and agitate the same grievances.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and given careful consideration to the material placed on record and the arguments urged before us.

4. The relevant facts of this case, in brief, are that the petitioner is a manufacturer of BT cotton seeds which are sold under the name of Laya Bt.2 cotton seeds. The respondent no.1 is a farmer owning 1.32 acres of agricultural land in Pallarguda village, Sangem Mandal, Warangal district who had purchased 1 packet of Laya Bt.2 cotton seeds for Rs.750/- on 12.06.2010 and planted the same on his agricultural land in the 2010 season. It is the contention of the respondent no.1 that the seeds were purchased by him on being persuaded by the claims of the manufacturer that they would provide high yields per acre and that they would be resistant to Green Leaf Hopper or Jassid pests (also known as Pachcha Duma). According to respondent no.1, petitioner had claimed that the Bt.2 cotton seeds would ensure a yield of 15 to 20 quintals per acre as against the normal yield of less than 1 quintal per acre of cotton. Respondent no.1 contends that he incurred a cost of Rs. 20,000/- per acre on agricultural operations while planting these seeds including ploughing, use of fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides and insecticides. However, the germination of the seeds was poor with scanty flowering and boll of only about 40%, whereas seeds of other companies such as Neerja, Dr. Brent and Mahyco in the same agricultural season yielded much better results. Based on complaints of farmers, the Agriculture Department conducted enquiries and also sought a report from the Regional Agriculture Research Station, Warangal which held that the poor yield was on account of heavy rainfall and wet conditions and not only due to Jassid pest infestation. The respondent no.1 thereafter filed a complaint before the District Forum, Warangal under Section 12 of the Act, praying for the relief of Rs. 50,000/- for crop loss and damages with interest @ 24% and future interest till realization. The District Forum, on contest, and after considering the report of one Dr. M. Gopinath, Principal Scientist (Cotton Breeding), Regional Agriculture Research Station, Warangal, allowed the complaint and awarded Rs. 24,000/- with compensation at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint (02.05.2011) till realization with costs of Rs. 1,000/-. Aggrieved, both parties approached the State Commission in appeal with the appellant herein praying for the setting aside of the order of the District Forum in FA 682 of 2019 and the respondent no.1 praying for enhancement of the compensation awarded in FA 273 of 2020. The State Commission, vide its order dated 20.12.2022, dismissed both the appeals as without merit and confirmed the order of the District Forum. This order has been challenged before us by way of the revision petition by the appellant praying to set aside the order of the fora below.

5. It is contended by the petitioner that the order of the State Commission has not considered the merits of the case and has erred in reaching its findings that the seeds were defective without the report of an appropriate laboratory/expert as required under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act which mandates the same. Appellant argued that the seeds had been cleared for use in the field b