Mere 'Possibility' of Damage Insufficient to Prove Defective Goods; Onus on Complainant to Prove Defect at Time of Sale: Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Commission - 2025-08-27

State Consumer Commission Overturns Order Granting Relief to Farmers, Cites Lack of Proof for Defective Seeds

Bhopal: The Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in a significant ruling, has overturned the decision of the Chhindwara District Commission that had awarded compensation to dozens of farmers for crop failure due to allegedly defective soybean seeds. The State Commission held that a finding of deficiency cannot be based on mere possibility or conjecture and emphasized that the burden of proof lies squarely on the complainants to establish that the seeds were defective at the time of purchase.

The bench, comprising Acting President Mr. A.K. Tiwari and Member Dr. Shrikant Pandey, allowed a batch of 51 appeals filed by cooperative societies, thereby dismissing the original complaints filed by the farmers.

Case Background

The dispute dates back to 2011 when numerous farmers from Chhindwara district filed complaints before the District Consumer Commission. They alleged that the soybean seeds purchased from the Chhindwara Seed Producer Cooperative Society Ltd. (Appellant No. 1) and distributed by the Tribal Service Cooperative Society Sonpur (Appellant No. 2) failed to germinate, resulting in significant crop and financial loss.

Initially, the District Commission dismissed their complaints in 2012. However, the matter was remanded back by the State Commission in 2019 for fresh consideration and to allow further evidence. Following the remand, the District Commission, in 2022, ruled in favour of the farmers, finding the cooperative societies guilty of service deficiency and ordering them to pay compensation, interest, and costs.

This 2022 order led to a fresh round of appeals before the State Commission, with the cooperative societies seeking to have the order set aside and the farmers seeking enhanced compensation.

Arguments of the Parties

For the Cooperative Societies (Appellants): -

The societies argued that the seeds were delivered in a safe condition on June 9, 2011, a fact supported by affidavits from the truck driver and a godown keeper. -

They heavily relied on the testimony of Dr. Vijay Paradkar, a senior agricultural scientist who headed the initial investigation committee. Dr. Paradkar stated that wet seeds would start decaying within 11 days. Since the seeds were sold to farmers up to 16 days after delivery to the society, any moisture damage would have been visible and no experienced farmer would have purchased them. -

It was pointed out that samples from the same lot of seeds, when tested by the Seed Testing Officer in Gwalior, were found to meet the standard germination rate of 73-74%. -

Furthermore, the societies had sold the same batch of seeds to 151 other farmers who reported no issues, indicating the seeds were of standard quality.

For the Farmers (Respondents): -

The farmers contended that the seeds supplied were moist and defective, which was the sole reason for the germination failure. -

They cited the initial report by Dr. Paradkar's committee, which mentioned a "possibility" that the seeds might have gotten wet during transportation due to rainfall on the delivery date. -

The farmers argued that the District Commission had correctly identified a deficiency in service and that the compensation awarded was inadequate given their actual losses.

Commission's Analysis and Findings

The State Commission conducted a thorough review of the evidence, particularly the expert testimony and lab reports presented after the case was remanded.

The bench gave significant weight to the expert opinion of Dr. Vijay Paradkar, who, during his cross-examination, clarified several key points: -

The germination of seeds depends on multiple factors, including sowing methods, weather, soil, and fertilizers. -

The seeds collected from the farmers for testing were found to be of standard quality by a government laboratory. -

Dr. Paradkar famously stated, "The farmer is a bigger scientist than us. We have bookish knowledge," implying that farmers would have easily identified and rejected visibly wet or damaged seeds.

The Commission noted that the farmers failed to produce any concrete evidence to prove that the seeds were indeed wet or defective when they purchased them. The District Commission's order, it observed, was based on the "mere possibility" mentioned in an initial report, which was not substantiated by later evidence or expert testimony.

"The District Commission has passed the impugned order based merely on the possibility of the seeds getting wet, as mentioned in the investigation report, which cannot be said to be legally sound," the judgment stated.

The Commission also highlighted that the farmers purchased the seeds several days after their delivery to the cooperative society. If the seeds had been wet since the delivery date (June 9, 2011), they would have visibly deteriorated by the time of sale (up to June 25, 2011), and no farmer would have accepted them.

Final Decision

Based on this reasoning, the State Commission concluded that the farmers had failed to discharge their burden of proof. It held that there was no conclusive evidence to establish a deficiency in service on the part of the cooperative societies.

Consequently, the appeals filed by the cooperative societies were allowed, and the orders of the District Commission dated October 17, 2022, and December 5, 2022, were set aside. The original complaints filed by the farmers were dismissed, and their cross-appeals for enhanced compensation were also rejected.