Date of filing :12.08.2020 Date of order :14.10.2025 MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

FIRST APPEAL NO. : 431 OF 2020 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 243 OF 2017 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : OSMANABAD Nirmal Seeds Pvt.Ltd. …Appellant Through its POA, (Adv.A.S.Pavse)

Pachora, Dist.Jalgaon.

VERSUS

1. Sachin Sudhakar Shelke, …Respondent 1 R/o Khamaswadi, Tq.Kalamb, (Adv.Bhise)

Dist.Osmanabad.

2. Omprakash Krishi Seva Kendra, …Respondent 2 Prop.Balu Nishikant Pophale, (Adv.Kakde)

Khamaswadi, Tq.Kalamb, Dist.Osmanabad.

FIRST APPEAL NO. : 432 OF 2020 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 242 OF 2017 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : OSMANABAD Nirmal Seeds Pvt.Ltd. …Appellant Through its POA, (Adv.A.S.Pavse)

Pachora, Dist.Jalgaon.

VERSUS

1. Dhananjay Manohar Shelke, …Respondent 1 R/o Khamaswadi, Tq.Kalamb, (Adv.Bhise)

Dist.Osmanabad.

2. Omprakash Krishi Seva Kendra, …Respondent 2 Prop.Balu Nishikant Pophale, (Adv.Kakde)

Khamaswadi, Tq.Kalamb, Dist.Osmanabad.

FIRST APPEAL NO. : 433 OF 2020 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 241 OF 2017 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : OSMANABAD Nirmal Seeds Pvt.Ltd. …Appellant Through its POA, (Adv.A.S.Pavse)

Pachora, Dist.Jalgaon.

VERSUS

1. Sanjay Haridas Shelke, …Respondent 1 R/o Khamaswadi, Tq.Kalamb, (Adv.Bhise)

Dist.Osmanabad.

2. Omprakash Krishi Seva Kendra, …Respondent 2 Prop.Balu Nishikant Pophale, (Adv.Kakde)

Khamaswadi, Tq.Kalamb, Dist.Osmanabad.

FIRST APPEAL NO. : 434 OF 2020 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 240 OF 2017 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : OSMANABAD Nirmal Seeds Pvt.Ltd. …Appellant Through its POA, (Adv.A.S.Pavse)

Pachora, Dist.Jalgaon.

VERSUS

1. Sarjerao Ranba Garje, …Respondent 1 R/o Khamaswadi, Tq.Kalamb, (Adv.Bhise)

Dist.Osmanabad.

2. Omprakash Krishi Seva Kendra, …Respondent 2 Prop.Balu Nishikant Pophale, (Adv.Kakde)

Khamaswadi, Tq.Kalamb, Dist.Osmanabad.

CORAM : Milind.S.Sonawane, Hon’ble Presiding Member.

Nagesh.C.Kumbre, Hon’ble Member J U D G M E N T Per Milind S.Sonawane, Hon’ble Presiding Member.

All these appeals are challenging the correctness and legality of the judgments and orders passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Osmanabad (the ‘District Forum’ for short) in C.C.No. 240 to 243 of 2017, whereby the District Forum allowed the complaints filed by respondent no.1 in all appeals and directed the appellant to compensate each of the respondent no.1 for defective seeds along with compensation for physical and mental harassment and cost of the proceedings.

2. The facts giving rise to these appeals are that, each of respondent no.1 purchased Soyabin Nirmal NSO 84 seeds manufactured by the appellant. They sown those seeds into their farm. However, even after a week of the sowing, the crops did not grow out of the soil. It is therefore they complained it to the Taluka Seeds Grievance Redressal Samiti( the ‘Seeds Committee’ for short). The members of the Seeds Committee visited their farms and prepared the panchanama. They reported that, only 13% of the seeds have grown out. Respondent no.1 requested the appellant to compensate them for failure of their crops. The appellant denied the same. As such they filed above referred consumer complaint before the District Commission.

3. The appellant appeared before the District Forum and contested the complaint filed by respondent no.1. It is contended by the appellant that, the report of the Seeds Committee is not correct. Their representative was not intimated about visit of the committee to the farms of the respondent no.1. There is no complaint of other farmers regarding the same seeds of the same batch in the vicinity. Respondent no.1 has not given any evidence as to the purchase of the seeds and that when they sown the seeds into their farms. Thus, according to them, the seeds sold by them to respondent no.1 were not defective and there is no deficiency in service on their part.

4. The matter proceeded without say of respondent no.2 before the District Forum.

5. The District Forum on evaluating evidence produced before it and on hearing the learne