IMPORTANT POINTS
(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 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. The farmer is not expected to retain samples.
(2) Assessment of Compensation – Compensation calculated based on the probable yield per acre and the prevailing market rates of the crop is a valid method for determining damages in cases of crop failure due to defective seeds.

JUDGMENT

Milind S. Sonawane, Presiding Member.—These are the appeals challenging the correctness and legality of the judgments and orders passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Osmanabad (the ‘District Commission’ for short) in various consumer complaints as indicated in the title clause of this judgment.

2. As all these appeals involve the common issue of facts and law and parties involved in them are identical we are disposing them of by way of this common judgment.

3. The facts giving rise to these appeals are that, respondent No.1 in all matters are farmers, respondent No.2 is the vendor of the seeds manufactured by the appellant. The appellant are the manufacturer of the soyabean seeds. Respondent No.1 have purchased those seeds to be sown in their agriculture land in the agriculture season 2020-21. The Particulars Appeal No., name of respondent No.1, Gat No., area under cultivation, quantity of seeds purchased, price paid for the seeds, date of inspection by Seeds Grievance Committee and amount of compensation granted by District Commission are as follows.

(Matter in Other Language)

4. It is the case of respondent No.1 in all cases that, they sown the soyabean seeds as indicated in above table in their respective agriculture lands. They took every effort for its cultivation.

However, till the mid of the June 2020, the seeds did not grow out. It is therefore they first of all approached the appellant and respondent no.2 as to the non-germination of the seeds. But they did not respond. As such, they preferred the complaint to the Taluka Level Seeds Grievance Committee (‘the Committee’ for short). Accordingly, the Committee visited their farms on the date as indicated in the above table. The Committee in its report remarked that, growing out capacity of the seeds sold by the appellant is found to be in F.A.No.680/2022, 3.64%, in F.A.No.681/2022 25% and in F.A.No.682/2022 20%. They requested appellant and respondent no.2 to compensate them for failure of crops, to which they did not positively reply. It is therefore, all respondent No.1 filed consumer complaints before the District Commission in which the impugned judgments have passed.

5. The appellant contested the matters before District Commission and denied all the allegations made by respondent No.1 against it. It is contended that, they are reputed seeds company manufacturing good quality seeds. Before the seeds are to be made available to the farmers for sale the same are to be strictly tested for its purity, humidity and germination etc. The test of the seeds regarding these aspects are carried out in their laboratory. It is only after the approval of the ‘competent authority’ under the Seeds Act, the seeds manufactured are permitted to be sold. In the present case also the seeds were so tested and sold to respondent No.1 through respondent no.2. There are no complaints of any farmers excepting respondent No.1 in all these appeals. The Agriculture Officer of the Committee not informed them to remain present for spot inspection. The panchanama and report made by the Committee is not in a prescribed format. Respondent No.1 in all cases not sown the seeds as per instructions given in the leaflet. The Seeds Inspector, who was under a duty after receipt of the complaint regarding the defective seeds, to get the seeds tested in the appropriate laboratory. Respondent No.1 seems to have sown less seeds per acre in their farms. In short, according to the appellant the seeds sold by them through respondent no.2 were free from any defect or impurity.

6. The matter proceeded ‘without say’ against respondent no.2 before the District Commission.

7. The District Commission on appreciating the facts and evidence before it and after hearing learned counsels of both sides drawn the conclusion that, in view of the provisions of S.13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, so as to determine the defect or impurity of the disputed seeds the testing of the same w