##PAGE1##

1 FA/945/2021

Date of filing :23.04.2021 Date of order :17.04.2026

MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT

AURANGABAD.

FIRST APPEAL NO. : 945 OF 2021 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 336 OF 2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION : LATUR.

Maharashtra State Seeds Corporation Ltd,. Appellant Agricultural Produce Market Committee (Adv.Naik Thigale)

Building, Market Yard, Tq. and Dist.Latur.

VERSUS

1. Vyankat Kisan Muley, Respondent No.1 R/o Ankoli, Tq.&Dist.Latur. (In person) 2. Gayatri Fertilizers, (Ex-parte)

Through its Proprietor, R/o Shop No.1, Ankulvar Complex,

Rajshri Shahu Bank, Kavha road, Basweshwar chowk, Latur.

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

Nagesh C.Kumbre, Hon’ble Member.

J U D G M E N T

(Delivered on 17/04/2026)

Per Milind S.Sonawane, Hon’ble Presiding Member.

This is an appeal challenging the correctness and legality of the judgment and order passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Latur (the ‘District Commission’ for short) in C.C. No. 336/2018 whereby the

2 FA/945/2021

District Commission allowed the complaint filed by respondent no.1 and directed the appellant and respondent no.2 to pay to respondent no.1 jointly and severally sum of Rs.73,400/- within 30 days of the order, failing which the sum would carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. The District Commission also directed them to pay to respondent no.1 sum of Rs.5000/- for mental and physical harassment and Rs.2000/- as the costs of

the proceedings.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that, respondent no.1 is the farmer. Appellant is the seed manufacturer and respondent no.2 is its vendor. Respondent no.1 has purchased 3 bags of soyabeen seeds of lot number OTC 2017-06-182013- 6645. He paid Rs. 5100/- as consideration for it. He sowed those seeds in his farm bearing Gat No.302 of Mauje Ankoli in 80 R area. However, it is seen that, there had been only 25 % germination and therefore, he suffered the loss of the crop. He informed it to the appellant as well as respondent no.2 and asked them to compensate. They did not consider his request. Thereupon, he complained about the incident to Taluka Seeds Grievance Committee (the ‘committee’ for short). The committee visited his farm on 18.07.2018 for inspection. The committee recorded the finding that, only 25 % of the seeds are germinated. As per their prima facie inspection, because of the defective seeds the germination was found to be only 25 %. As such, respondent no.1, when he did not receive compensation he filed the above referred consumer complaint before the District Commission, in which the impugned judgment is

passed.

3 FA/945/2021

3. The appellant has come before us with the case that, the seeds manufactured and sold by them were certified by the State Certification Agency. They, as a manufacturing company have also their own recognised laboratory. The seeds in question were tested and certified by the said laboratory. It was found to be standard. The Maharasthra State Seeds Certification Agency certified that, the yield capacity of the seeds is 80 % and purity was 100% . In this background respondent no.1 has not offered any evidence so as to establish that, the seeds were having any defect, except the report of the committee, which is based merely on inspection. It is also the stand taken by the appellant that, respondent no.1 sown the seeds in question in June 2018. As per the Metrological Departments in the month of June 2018 there was no rain in the region. In such situation respondent no.1 ought not to have sown the seeds. The appellant further states that, there is discrepancy as to the lot number and the number of bags sown by respondent no.1. The document described the lot number to be 6645. In the report of the committee also the number is same. In that report respondent no.1 shown to have sown two bags. However, respondent no.1 has complained about lot No. 6615 (and not 6645) and quantity of bags was state