##PAGE1##

FA/64 0/2024 M/S. HINDUSTAN SEEDS & PASTRICIDES VS. MR. OM PRAKASH D.O.D.: 30.03.2026

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

Date of Institution: 25.09.2024 Date of Hearing: 28.11.2025 Date of Decision: 30.03.2026

FIRST APPEAL NO. 640/2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/S. HINDUSTAN SEEDS & PASTRICIDES, THROUGH ITS PARTNER MR. JAGDISH LAL GOGIA,

99, INDIRA MARKET, OLD SABZI MANDI,

DELHI–110007.

(Through: Mr. Nitin Saxena, Advocate)

…Appellant

VERSUS

MR. OM PRAKASH, S/O LATE MR. BUDH SAIN,

R/O HOUSE NO. 5567, GALI NO. 4, NEW CHANDRAWAL,

DELHI–110007.

(Through: Mr. Naved Azam, Advocate)

…Respondent

ALLO WED PAGE 1 OF 7

FA/64 0/2024 M/S. HINDUSTAN SEEDS & PASTRICIDES VS. MR. OM PRAKASH D.O.D.: 30.03.2026

CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)

Present: Mr. Nitin Saxena, AR of the Appellant.

Respondent in person.

Mr. Naved Azam, Counsel for the Respondent.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT

JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:

“1. By way of this complaint the Complainant has sought relief qua M/s Hindustan Seeds & Pesticides (OP) for supplying poor quality seeds. The Complainant is stated to be a small agriculturist who takes land on annual rent and harvest crop for earning his livelihood. In this complaint, the Complainant alleges that he has purchased watermelon seeds of "Cobra Brand (Hybrid F1)" from OP herein in the month of December, 2016. Thereafter, the complainant sowed the said seeds in his agricultural land. But the said crop harvested from the said seeds was not of a good quality. It has also been stated by the complainant that entire crop was ruined and he had suffered a loss of Rs.7,50,000/-

approximately.

2. On our notice OP has appeared and filed its reply. In its reply OP has admitted that the seeds were indeed sold by the OP but OP has alleges that the complainant did not sow the seeds properly, as a result the quality of crop was not achieved. The OP has also stated that as per the information gathered from the neighbours of the complainant, the complainant mixed the seeds sold by the OP herein with the inferior quality seeds. This resulted in poor harvest outcome. The OP, however, has admitted the fact that the crop which was harvested by the complainant was of poor quality and the

OP has sold the seeds to the Complainant.”

2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the judgment dated 05.08.2024, whereby it held as under:

ALLO WED PAGE 2 OF 7

FA/64 0/2024 M/S. HINDUSTAN SEEDS & PASTRICIDES VS. MR. OM PRAKASH D.O.D.: 30.03.2026

“3. Both the parties have filed their respective evidences and we have heard their arguments.

4. The facts that complainant had purchased the seeds from the OP and the fact that the harvest was not as per expectation and was of very poor quality, are admitted facts. However the argument of the OP that complainant mixed the seeds with the inferior quality seeds, is not substantiated by

any documents or reports.

5. During the arguments, we have also examined the packets of the seeds. The copy of the packet of seeds is also part of the pleadings. The said packets of the seeds are also not in compliance of the applicable rules which mandates proper labelling of the packaged product. The labelling on the package of the said seeds is in Chinese language. As the labelling is not in any of the Indian language, the said label is not in accordance with the applicable rules. Improper labelling also supports allegations of the complainant that the

seeds were of poor quality.

6. Hence for the reasons explained above, we are of the opinion that the Complainant has established the case. Accordingly, we hold the OP liable on multiple grounds. First, the OP has supplied poor quality seeds. Second, OP has supplied seeds in a package which is not in compliance of applicable labelling rules as the label was in not in any Indian