Avm Jonnalagadda Rajendra, Avsm Vsm (Retd), Member

1. These Revision Petitions have been filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act") against the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab ("the State Commission") Order dated 05.03.2020 in First Appeal Nos. 585 to 589 of 2018, whereby the Appeals filed by the complainants were allowed against the Order dated 12.09.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (the District Forum") in CC Nos. 353 to 368 of 2016.

2. Since the present Revision Petitions arise out of a common impugned Order, they are being disposed of by way of this common Order. For convenience, Revision Petition No. 1067 of 2020 is being treated as the lead case, and the parties are referred to accordingly.

3. As per the report of the Registry, there is 172 days delay in filing these Revision Petitions. However, vide Order dated 17.08.2022, the delay was condoned and the Revision Petitions were treated as having been filed within limitation.

4. Brief facts of the case, as set out in the complaint, are that the complainant, relying upon the assurances and representations made by the agents of the Opposite Parties (OPs) that the "Chini" variety of muskmelon seeds would yield higher production as compared to other varieties, purchased one kilogram of the said seeds from OP-1 and 2, who are dealers of OPs-3 and 4, on 17.02.2016 for a total consideration of Rs.14,000 vide Invoice/Bill (Ex. C-1). The seeds were packed in 25- gram packets, and accordingly, the complainant purchased 40 such packets. The packaging envelope has been placed on record as Ex. C-2. It is contended that the complainant sowed the said seeds in his agricultural fields. However, contrary to expectations, while crops of other varieties in the vicinity yielded fruits weighing between 500 to 700 grams, the complainant‟s crop failed to produce proper yield. It is alleged that the flowering was deficient, and the fruits that developed were black in colour, bitter in taste, and devoid of any market value. Upon inquiry, the complainant, along with other agriculturists of nearby villages, discovered that the seeds supplied were of inferior and duplicate quality, and that they had been misled by the Opposite Parties, who charged an exorbitant price. Consequently, a joint representation dated 05.05.2016 (Ex. C-3) was submitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala by the complainant and other agriculturists from Village Khokh and Kotli, Tehsil Nabha, and Villages Jangpura and Jalalpur, Tehsil Rajpura. The Complainants contended that one kilogram of seed was sufficient for cultivation over 5 acres of land and that the cultivators had incurred an expenditure of approximately Rs.30,000/- per acre. It was further highlighted that the produce was black, bitter and had no market value, thereby causing substantial financial loss. Pursuant thereto, officials from the Agriculture Department inspected the fields on 06.05.2016 and submitted a report (Ex. C-4), stating that the crop was free from disease and insect infestation and belonged to the Chini variety, though a detailed assessment was deferred. Another report dated 06.05.2016 (Ex. C-5), prepared by a Committee constituted by the Agriculture Department, confirmed that the seeds had been duly purchased and were recorded in the stock register of OP-1 and OP-2. It was further observed that the crop was well-maintained and free from disease and insects, although the fruits had not fully ripened at that stage. Subsequently, a detailed report dated 27.05.2016 (Ex. C-6) was submitted by the Deputy Director, Horticulture, Patiala to the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala. In the said report, it was categorically noted that the fruits produced were black in colour and bitter in taste, rendering them unmarketable. It was further reported that the said "Chini" variety was not approved by Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana. The report further records that during inspections conducted on 18.05.2016 and 23.05.2016, it was observed that the Chini variety crop had achieved only approximately 50% harvesting, whereas other varieties such as Madhu-149 and Muskan had achieved up to 90% harvesting. The Chini variety required approximately 90 days to mature with an expected yield of 55 quintals per acre, whereas other varieties matured in about 60 days with an approximate yield of 125 quintals per acre. It was further noted that while other varieties were being sold at rates ranging from Rs.12/- to Rs.15/- per kilogram, the Chini variety fetched only Rs.3/- to Rs.5/- per kilogram. Accordingly, the net loss suffered by the complainant was assessed at Rs.6,00,000/- on account of lower yield and inferior market price. It is also averred that, despite the peak harvesting season in May, the complainant‟s crop yielded only about 50% output as compared to 90% yield of other varieties, resulting in substantial financial loss attributable to the defective and inferior seeds supplied by the Opposite Parties. It was further contended that certain agriculturists submitted another representation dated 31.07.2016 (Ex. C-7). Thereafter, the Agriculture Officer, Patiala, vide letter No. 2427 dated 31.05.2016 (Ex. C-8), ordered suspension of the licence of M/s Kissan Sewa Centre bearing No. 489 dated 02.05.2005. Despite repeated requests made by the complainant for compensation, the Opposite Parties failed to redress the grievance. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the OPs, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- towards financial loss, Rs.20,000/- for mental agony, Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses, along with interest @ 18% per annum.

5. Upon notice, OP-1 and OP-2 appeared and filed a joint written statement. OP-3, despite service, failed to appear and was proceeded against ex parte vide Order dated 29.11.2016. In their written statement, OP-1 and OP-2 raised preliminary objections, contending that the complaint was not maintainable and that the District Forum lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter, as the appropriate remedy lay under the provisions of the Seeds Act, 1966. It was further contended that they were merely dealers/stockists of OP-3 and bore no liability, as the seeds were sold in sealed packets as received from the manufacturer without any tampering. On merits, it was admitted that the complainant had purchased the "Chini" variety of muskmelon seeds; however, it was denied that any assurance regarding higher yield or better market price had been given. It was also denied that duplicate or inferior seeds had been supplied. It was asserted that the seeds were of standard quality and had been purchased by the complainant after due satisfaction. It was further contended that the suspension of their licence was wrongful and had subsequently been revoked by the Director, Agriculture Department, Punjab. All other allegations were denied, and dismissal of the complaint was prayed for. OP-4, in its separate written statement dated 16.05.2017, raised preliminary objections contending that the complainant does not fall within the definition of "consumer" under the Act and that the complaint is not maintainable. It was further contended that the matter pertains to seed quality, which is governed exclusively by the Seeds Act, 1966, and therefore, the Consumer Forum lacks jurisdiction. On merits, it was admitted that OP-1 and OP-2 are dealers of OP-3 and OP-4. However, it was denied that any assurance regarding higher yield had been given. It was contended that the complainant had purchased the seeds after independently verifying their quality and market reputation. It was further contended that inspections conducted by the Agriculture Department, including inspection dated 21.04.2016, indicated that the crop had begun fruiting. Subsequent inspections dated 06.05.2016, 18.05.2016 and 23.05.2016 revealed that approximately 50% of the crop had been harvested and that the plants bore multiple fruits with healthy flowering. It was also observed that the fruits were initially green (being unripe) and required time to mature, and that the allegations regarding black colour and bitterness were premature. All other allegations were denied and dismissal of the complaint was sought.

6. The learned District Forum vide Order dated 12.09.2018 dismissed the complaints with the following observation:-

                          "37. We have heard the Id. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully with the valuable assistance of Id. counsel for the parties.

                          38. During arguments, the contentions of both the parties are similar to their respective pleas, so no need to reiterate the same.

                          39. Further counsel for the complainant has argued that complainants came to this Forum with clean hands. Seeds are defective provided by OPs to the complainant. Further learned counsel argued and more stressed on documents Ex.C-6 and Ex C-8. Muskmelon fruit are not ripen within time as compared to other varieties. Agriculture Department team inspected the crop by the Chief Agriculture Officer, Patiala on 6/5/2016 and 18/5/2016 and found "CHANNI" breed was grown by complainant has not started giving fruits due to non ripening when the high breed Madhu 149 and Muskan is being plucked by the other agriculturist of the area. On 23/5/2016 above said team again inspected the crop Chinni Variety. Muskmelon was plucked upto 50% when the other breeds have been plucked upto 90% and the "CHINNI" crop has been prepared to give fruit after 90 days and the yield is 55 quintal per acre.

                          40. On 31/5/2016 as per Ex.C-7 some agriculturists again moved a representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala to provide report dt. 6/5/2016 prepared by Department team (Supra) in which complainant mentioned that they received duplicate seeds and picture of the Muskmelon on the pamphlet is not similar to the ripen muskmelon grown in the fields of the complainant. No price received in the market.

                          41. As per para No.2 of the complaint neither a single document nor evidence produced on record by the complainant that Ops agent contacted the complainant to purchase the seeds of "CHINNI" variety of Muskmelon. Para No.7 of the complaint pleaded that black and bitter fruit has no value in the market.

                          Ex.C-4 Krishi Vigyan Centre Patiala Asst Director (Training) namely Jaswinder Singh inspected the fields of the complainant on 06/05/2016 and mentioned that nothing to be presumed that what is the taste of the Muskmelon because the fruit is unripe and its colour is green. These seeds are not recommended by the Punjab Agriculture University Ludhiana. So nothing could be tell about the variety of such type of seeds in question.

                          42. Ex.C-5 is the investigation report prepared by ADO, Rajpura and Patiala on 06/05/2016 which is similar to Ex.C-4. Letter No.1750 dt.27/5/2016 is Ex.C-6 issued by Deputy Director, Horticulture, Patiala to D.C., Patiala that seeds of Muskmelon are not recommended by Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana. So nothing could be tell about the variety of such type of seeds. Production is 55 quintal per acre and it took 90 days for ripen. Now question is that whether the seeds in question are duplicate or low quality seeds and bitterness of the muskmelon fruit? The burden/ onus of proof is on the complainant to prove his own case. From this angle complainant neither produced any expert report of Muskmelon regarding taste is bitter as pleaded by complainant in his pleadings in para No.7 of the complaint nor shown any documentary evidence that seeds in question are duplicate/ low quality seeds. As per Ex.C-7 complainant pleaded "Muskmelon on the pamphlet is not similar to the ripen muskmelon." "A man can lie, but documents can't. To trace out the truth, we have gone through the document Ex.C-2 very minutely and observe that on the back of seed container it is clear cut mentioned that, "The picture on this container is intended to represent the kind only"

                          Moreover, no price received in the market by complainant as per para 7 of the complaint No.367 of 8.9.2016, is falsify from Ex.C9, sale hill dated 25.5.2016. in the market. Same is falsify in complaint No.359 of 8.9.2016 vide bill, Ex.C9 dated 21.5.2016.

                          Same is falsified in complaint No.356 of 2016, vide Exa.C9 to C11, sale bills dated 26.5.2016, 27.5.2016, 30.5.2016 of Rs. 3270/-, Rs.45,442/- & Rs.49,482/-respectively.

                          The version of the complainant is falsified in complaint No.364 of 2016 vide sale bill-Ex.C9 dated 27.5.2016. In complaint No.366/2016 vide sale bills Ex.C9 dated 19.5.2016 for Rs.2800 & C10 dated 28.5.2016 for Rs.4922 & complaint No.362 of 8.9.2016 vide sale bill Ex.C9 dated 28.5.2016 of Rs.33,173/-issued by New Sabzi Mandi, Nabha & Ex.C10 dated 23.5.2016 of Rs.1360/-.

                          43. However, Ex.C-6 on page 2 from bottom to 4th line, it is mentioned the Moisture is 2% in the crop of Muskmelon while as per Ex.C-2 on the back side of the container seed, it is mentioned Moisture (MAX) 7%. We observe from the factum and circumstances of the cases that production of crop depend upon the soil of the land, weather, is suitable or not for the particular crop is a major factor. Even the facts of both the judgments 2005(2) C.P.C.292 Citibank N.A.Global Consumer Bank Vs. Shri Naranjan Mohan Singh and others & 2016(3) C.P.J.673 Sabmiller India Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma, produced by the complainant's counsel during arguments are not similar to the case in hand.

                          44. Resultantly, we dismiss the complaint. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Certified copies of this order, be also placed on the files of above mentioned other complaints. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room."

7. Being aggrieved by the District Forum order, the five complainants filed Appeals No.585 to 589 of 2018 and the State Commission vide order dated 05.03.2020 allowed the Appeals with following observations:

                          "9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case. We have also gone through the written arguments submitted by the parties. Contentions of the Parties:

                          10. In the written arguments, it has been submitted that the complainant purchased one kilogram of muskmelon seeds of Chini variety from opposite parties Nos.1 and 2, who are dealers of opposite parties Nos.3 and 4, vide Invoice Retail, Ex.C-1, for a total sum of Rs.14,000/- and had sown the same in his five acres of land. The quality of the seed was very low, as a result of which there was 50% yield of fruit and that too was of black colour colour and bitter in taste. This has been proved by various reports submitted by the concerned authorities including Agriculture Department and Horticulture Department.

                          As per report dated 12.5.2016, Ex.C-4, by the Agriculture Department the variety of Chini was not approved by the Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana. In another report dated 27.5.2016, Ex.C-6, of Deputy Director, Horticulture, Patiala it was reported that other varieties were ready to pluck in a period of 60 days and gave yield of 125 quintals per acre and was selling @ 12/-to 15/- per kilogram whereas the Chini variety gave yield of 55 quintals per acre and was sold @ Rs.3/- to Rs.5/- per kilogram and, as such, net loss of Rs.6,00,000/- was caused to the complainant. Even Agriculture Officer, Patiala, suspended the license of opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 till further orders, which was conveyed, vide letter No. 2427 dated 31.5.2016, Ex. C-8. However, the District Forum has failed to appreciate the reports available on the record in right perspective as a result of which great Injustice has been caused to the complainant and the other farmers.

                          10. Per contra, the learned counsel for opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 argued on the similar lines as have been made in their reply and defended the order passed by the District Forum. It was prayed that there is no merit in the present appeals and the same are liable to be dismissed.

                          11. Similarly the learned counsel for opposite parties Nos.3 and 4 argued on the similar lines as have been made in the reply filed by opposite party No.4 and defended the order passed by the District Forum. It was prayed that there is no merit in the present appeals and the same may be dismissed with cost.

                          Consideration of Contentions:

                          12. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised before us by the learned counsel for the parties.

                          13. Before dealing with other contentions it would be appropriate to examine the contention of the opposite parties whether the complainant is a 'consumer' and whether the complaint under the C.P. Act is maintainable as there is alternative remedy available to him under the Seeds Act, 1966? Admittedly, the complainant had purchased the muskmelon seed of Chini variety from the opposite parties at the rate of Rs.14,000/- per kilogram. The said seed was sown by the complainant in his fields to get the yield as promised by the opposite parties. The complainant is a farmer and agriculturist and is sowing the crops for earning his livelihood. There is no element of commercial nature in purchasing the seeds and further selling the crop/agriculture produce to a particular person. Once the source of income of the complainant is agriculture to earn his and his family's livelihood, it cannot be treated as commercial project. Moreover, these issues are no more res integra as the same have already been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & another 2012(1) RCR (Civil) 838 (SC). In view of this, it is held that the complainant falls within the definition of consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act and the complaint is maintainable under the C.P. Act.

                          14. Admittedly the complainant had purchased one kilogram Muskmelon Chini variety seed from opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. Kissan Sewa Centre, vide Retail Invoice, Ex.C-1, which was the product of opposite parties Nos 3 and 4, for a sum of Rs.14,000/- and had sown the same in his five acres of land as 200 grams of seed was required to be sown in one acre of land. However, the fruit of the crop was black in colour and bitter in taste, which had no value in the market. Therefore a joint complaint was lodged by the farmers of the village of the complainant and of nearby villages dated 5.5.2016, Ex. C-3, to the Deputy Commissioner Patiala, for supplying spurious seeds, which resulted into losses. The Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, directed the Horticulture Department to examine the matter and in compliance of the same a report was sent to Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, vide letter No. 1750 dated 27.5.2016, Ex.C-6, by the Horticulture Department in which it is mentioned that the said hybrid was not recommended by the Punjab Agriculture University. Ludhiana In the said letter it has been further mentioned that Horticulture Development Officer, Rajpura, had inspected the standing crops of 10 complainants on 21.4.2016 and he found that the fruit had started growing. It is further mentioned that a team constituted by the Chief Agriculture Officer, Patiala had visited the villages of the complainants on 6.5.2016 and after inspecting the standing crops and during the course of inquiry it was found that the seed was purchased in the second week of February 2016. The vines of muskmelon were good and there was no disease or insect attack on the same. The farmers had well maintained the crops. There were bumper flowers on the vines. There were 4 to 5 small and big fruits on one vine. The fruit at that time was unripe and was green in colour due to which nothing could be ascertained about the taste of fruit. If the environmental conditions remain perfect, then there was possibility of ripening of the fruits after two weeks. On 18.5.2016 the said team again visited the villages of the complainants and found that the fruits had not yet ripen and net had been grown on the fruits. However, the fruits started ripening. But the harvesting of fruits of seeds of other companies ie. Hybrid Madhu 149 and Muskan had already started. On 23.5.2016 the team inspected the fields of the complainants and found that 50% fruits had been harvested from the vines and there was mixture of 2% in the vines, whereas there was 90% harvesting of the fruits in respect of the hybrid of other Companies. It was reported that the hybrid seed of "Chini" variety of Somani Kanak Seedz Pvt. Ltd. had ripen for harvesting after 90 days anc the yield was 55 quintals per acre approximately. In this manner it becomes crystal clear that the seed was of sub-standard quality, which was supplied by opposite parties, which has resulted into the loss to the farmers, including the complainant.

                          15. Some of the farmers again made a complaint dated 31.5.2016, Ex C-7, to the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala and requested him that the reports were prepared in the fields, in their presence by the inspecting teams. It was also stated that even a single muskmelon was not in resemblance to the muskmelon shown on the pamphlet, Ex.C-2. The fruit had not grown up in time. The fruit which had grown in the fields had no market value. A request was made to take appropriate legal action against the opposite parties. It is pertinent to mention here that even Chief Agriculture Officer, Patiala had suspended the license of Kissan Sewa Kender, Rajpura till further orders on the ground that the complainants had sown the Chini variety of muskmelon seed after purchasing the same from opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 in their fields but the fruits did not grow in time. The said order was conveyed to opposite party No.1, vide letter dated 31.5.2016, Ex.C-8, by the Chief Agriculture Officer.

                          16. As per the arguments of the learned counsel for opposite parties the seed was of the best quality and certified and could be sown in the area of Punjab also. As per the technical report of Krishi Vigyan Centre, Patiala, Ex.C-4, it has been written that the variety of Chini hybrid seed of muskmelon was not a recommended variety by the Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana. However, on the back of envelope packet Ex.C-2 it is recommended for Punjab area also. Furthermore, opposite parties Nos.3 and 4 have not produced any evidence on record that they had conducted trial of the said seed in the area of Punjab and the same was found fit for sowing in the said area. Once the Punjab Agriculture University Ludhiana is not recommending such seed in the area of Punjab, then certainly it can be held that the seed in question was not recommended for the area of Punjab. It is wrongly written on the envelope that same can be cultivated in Punjab and such writing is unfair trade practice.

                          17. In view of our above discussion, it is held that the seed supplied by opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2, which was the product of opposite parties Nos.3 and 4 to the complainant and other farmers was of substandard quality; as a result of which the complainant and other farmers have suffered financial loss as well as harassment and mental agony. It certainly amounts to deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties for which the complainant and other farmers are liable to be compensated

                          18. Now coming to the quantum of compensation.

                          Admittedly the complainant had purchased 1 kilogram of muskmelon seed and had sown the same in his five acres of land. As per the report of Deputy Director, Horticulture, Patiala sent by him to the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, vide letter dated 27.5.2016, Ex.C-6, the approximate yield was 55 quintals per acre. If it is so, then the total yield out of 5 acres of land comes to 275 quintals. So far as the rate at which the sald muskmelon crop was sold is concerned, the complainant himself placed on record the affidavit of Suraj Bhan, Proprietor of Shankar Trading Company, Sabzi Mandi, Ambala, who deposed in para no.4 that the chin variety Muskmelon was sold @ Rs.3 to Rs.5/- per kilogram as the fruit of that variety was black and bitter and the other varieties of muskmelon i.e. Madhu 149 and Muskan were sold @ Rs.12/- to Rs.15/- per kilogram. No evidence in rebuttal has been produced by the opposite parties.

                          In these circumstances if we take average of these prices, then the rate at which muskmelon of chini variety was sold comes to Rs.4/- per kilogram and the rate at which other varieties of muskmelons were sold comes to Rs.13.50P per kilogram. Therefore, there was a loss of Rs.9.50 per kilogram to the complainant and other farmers. Hence the total loss suffered by the complainant comes to 275 quintals x Rs.9.50 Rs.2,61,250/- on account of defective seed sold by the opposite parties. In addition to this the complainant must have suffered harassment, mental tension and mental agony for which he is held entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.

                          19. In view of our above discussion, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Resultantly the complaint filed by the complainant is allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-

                          i) to pay 2,61,250/- to the complainant on account of loss of crop suffered by him along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 8.9.2016 till actual payment; and

                          ii) to pay Rs.33,000/-, as litigation costs, both before the District Forum as well as before this Commission.

                          All the opposite parties are directed to comply with the above order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order jointly and severally. First Appeal No.586 of 2018:

                          20. In this case the complainant, Sukhwinder Singh, purchased 650 grams of muskmelon chini variety seed for Rs.91,00/-, vide Bill dated 17.2.2016, Ex.C-1. It has not been mentioned in the complaint that in how many acres of land he had sown the said seed but since 200 grams of seed were required to be sown in one acre, therefore, it is held that the complainant had sown the said seed in 3.1/4th acres of land. He claimed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-, as compensation. Rest of the averments made in the complaint in present appeal are the same as have been made in the complaint i.e. Consumer Complaint No 363 of 2016 out of which FA No 585 of 2016 has The stand taken by the opposite parties in their replies is also the same. Similar arguments, oral as well as written, have been raised by the parties as have been raised in CC No.363 of 2016 out of which FA No. 585 of 2018 has arisen. In view of this, this appeal is also allowed in the same terms as FA Nc.585 of 2018.

                          21. In this case the total yield of the complainant comes to 55 quintals x 3.1/4 acres 179 quintals approximately. Thus, the loss suffered by the complainant comes to 179 quintals x Rs.9.50 = Rs.1,70,050/-.

22. Resultantly the complaint i.e. CC No.354 of 2016 is also allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-

i) to pay Rs.1,70,050 to the complainant on account of loss of crop suffered by him along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 8.9.2016 till actual payment, and

ii) to pay Rs.33,000/-, as litigation costs, both before the District Forum as well as before this Commission.

All the opposite parties are directed to comply with the above order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order jointly and severally. First Appeal No.587 of 2018:

23. In this case the complainant, Manjit Singh, purchased 500 grams of muskmelon chini variety seed for Rs.7,000/-, vide Bill dated 17.2.2016, Ex.C-1. It has not been mentioned in the complaint that in how many acres of land he had sown the said seed but since 200 grams of seed were required to be sown in one acre, therefore, it is held that the complainant had sown the said seed in two and a half acres of land. He claimed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, as compensation. Rest of the averments made in the complaint in present appeal are the same as have been made in the complaint le. Consumer Complaint No.363 of 2016 out of which FA No.585 of 2018 has arisen. The stand taken by the opposite parties in their replies is also the same. Similar arguments, oral as well as written, have been raised by the parties as have been raised in CC No.363 of 2016 out of which FA No.585 of 2018 has arisen. In view of this, this appeal is also allowed in the same terms as FA No.585 of 2018.

24. In this case the total yield of the complainant comes to 55 quintals x 2.1/2 acres = 138 quintals approximately. Thus, the loss suffered by the complainant comes to 138 quintals x Rs.9.50 Rs.1,31,100/-.

25. Resultantly the complaint i.e. CC No.360 of 2016 is also allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-

i) to pay Rs.1,31,100/- to the complainant on account of loss of crop suffered by him along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 8.9.2016 till actual payment; and

ii) to pay Rs.33,000/-, as litigation costs, both before the District Forum as well as before this Commission.

All the opposite parties are directed to comply with the above order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order jointly and severally. First Appeal No.588 of 2018:

26. In this case the complainant, Paramjit Singh, purchased 250 grams of muskmelon chini variety seed for Rs.3,500/-, vide Bill dated 15.2.2016, Ex.C-1. It has not been mentioned in the complaint that In how many acres of land he had sown the said seed but since 200 grams of seed were required to be sown in one acre, therefore, it is held that the complainant had sown the said seed in 1.1/4 acres of land. He claimed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation. Rest of the averments made in the complaint in present appeal are the same as have been made in the complaint re Consumer Complaint No.363 of 2016 out of which FA No. 585 of 2018 has arisen. The stand taken by the opposite parties in their replies is also the same. Similar arguments, oral as well as written, have been raised by the parties as have been raised in CC No.363 of 2016 out of which FA No.585 of 2018 has arisen. In view of this, this appeal is also allowed in the same terms as FA No.585 of 2018.

27. In this case the total yield of the complainant comes to 55 quintals x 1.1/4 acres = 69 quintals approximately. Thus, the loss suffered by the complainant comes to 69 quintals x Rs.9.50 = Rs.65,500/-.

28. Resultantly the complaint i.e. CC No.357 of 2016 is also allowed and following directions are issued to the OPs:-

i) to pay Rs.65,500/- to the complainant on account of loss of crop suffered by him along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint le. 8.9.2016 till actual payment; and

ii) to pay Rs.33,000/-, as litigation costs, both before the District Forum as well as before this Commission.

All the opposite parties are directed to comply with the above order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order jointly and severally.

First Appeal No.589 of 2018:

29. In this case the complainant, Jaswant Singh, purchased 750 grams of muskmelon chini variety seed for Rs.10,500/-, vide Bill dated 17.2.2016, Εx.C-1. It has not been mentioned in the complaint that in how many acres of land he had sown the said seed but since 200 grams of seed were required to be sown in one acre, therefore, it is held that the complainant had sown the said seed in 3.3/4 acres of land. He claimed a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- as compensation. Rest of the averments made in the complaint in present appeal are the same as have been made in the complaint le. Consumer Complaint No.363 of 2016 out of which FA No.585 of 2018 has arisen. The stand taken by the opposite parties in their replies is also the same. Similar arguments, oral as well as written, have been raised by the parties as have been raised in CC No.363 of 2016 out of which FA No.585 of 2018 has arisen. In view of this, this appeal is also allowed in the same terms as FA No.585 of 2018.

30. In this case the total yield of the complainant comes to 55 quintals x 3.3/4 acres 207 quintals approximately. Thus, the loss suffered by the complainant comes to 207 quintals x Rs.9.50 = Rs.1,96,650/-.

31. Resultantly the complaint i.e. CC No.361 of 2016 is also allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-

i) to pay Rs.1,96,650/- to the complainant on account of loss of crop suffered by him along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 8.9.2016 till actual payment, and

ii) to pay Rs.33,000 as litigation costs, both before the District Forum as well as before this Commission.

All the opposite parties are directed to comply with the above order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order jointly and severally.

32. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases."

8. Being dissatisfied by the Impugned Order dated 05.03.2020 passed by the State Commission, the Petitioners/OP-Somani Kanak Seedz Pvt. Ltd. (the Manufacturer) has filed the instant Revision Petitions bearing no.1067 to 1071 of 2020.

9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/OP, Somani Kanak Seedz Pvt. Ltd. (the Manufacturer) argued that these Revision Petitions have been preferred challenging the impugned Order dated 05.03.2020 passed by the State Commission in First Appeal Nos. 585 to 589 of 2018, whereby the well-reasoned order of the District Forum dismissing Complaint Case Nos. 353 to 368 of 2016 was erroneously set aside and compensation was awarded to the Respondents on untenable grounds. It was asserted that the District Forum had rightly held that the Complainants failed to discharge the burden of proving any defect in the seeds, particularly in the absence of any expert opinion or laboratory testing. The District Forum further observed that crop yield is dependent on several external factors such as soil conditions, climatic variations, irrigation, and agricultural practices. However, the State Commission misinterpreted the technical report dated 12.05.2016 and erroneously concluded deficiency in service merely on the ground that the seeds variety was not "recommended" by Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, even though the report itself clearly recorded that no definite conclusion could be drawn regarding seed quality. The learned counsel further submitted that contemporaneous inspection reports dated 06.05.2016, 12.05.2016, and 27.05.2016 unequivocally establish proper germination, healthy crop growth, flowering, and fruiting, with no disease or defect attributable to the seeds. It was argued that it is a settled principle of law, as reiterated by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and this Commission, that variation in crop yield cannot be attributed solely to seed quality, and that inter se comparison with other hybrid varieties is legally impermissible due to differences in genetic composition. It was also contended that the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was not followed, as no laboratory testing of the seeds was conducted to substantiate the allegations of defect. Moreover, the admitted fact that the crop produced fruits which were sold in the market negates any allegation of total crop failure. Additionally, it was argued that the Complainant does not fall within the definition of „consumer‟ under Section 2(d) of the Act, as the activity in question was purely commercial in nature and no plea of livelihood by self-employment was raised. The learned counsel further argued that the Petitioner company held a valid License No.1119 issued on 28.10.2015, which remained valid till 27.10.2018, and relevant supporting documents regarding the license and approval for sale of seed varieties in Punjab under the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 have been placed on record before this Commission vide I.A. No. 3893 of 2025. In view of the above, it was submitted that the impugned order suffers from patent errors of law and mis-appreciation of evidence, rendering the complaints an abuse of process and liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel relied on Mahyco Seeds Ltd vs Shrinivasa & Ors., R.P. No. 3525 of 2007, decided on 09.01.2012 (NCDRC); Indo American Hybrid Seeds & Anr. vs. Vijayakumar Shankarao & Anr., II(2007) CPJ 148 (NC); Zimidara Agro Center vs. Sukhdev Singh & Anr., RP. No.2354 of 2016 decided on 31.05.2017 (NCDRC); Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd vs Ishwarbhai Baburao Thakare & Ors., RP No. 4319 of 2012, decided on 05.01.2016 (NCDRC); Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Subhash Devam Wagh & Anr., RP No. 3205 of 2018, decided on 06.09.2019 (NCDRC); Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd vs. Sadhu & Anr., (2005) 3 SCC198; Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd. vs. Garapati Srinivas Rao & Anr., 2014 SCC OnLine NCDRC 39; Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. vs. Koppolu Sambasiva Rao & Ors 2005 SCC OnLine NCDRC 218; Banta Ram vs. Jai Bharat Beej Company Super Market & Anr 2013 SCC OnLine NCDRC 508; Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd. vs. B. Yedukondalu & Ors RP No.2272 of 2010 and connected matters, decided on 27.04.2011 (NCDRC); Syngenta India Ltd. vs. P. Chowdaiah, 2013 SCC OnLine NCDRC 658; Jarpula Veeru vs. Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. RP. No.63 of 2025 and connected matters, decided on 04.12.2025 (NCDRC); VNR Seeds Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Lingampalli Ravinder & Ors., Civil Revision Petition No.1175/2025 and batch, decided on 19.12.2025 (High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad) in support of his arguments.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the Complainant/Respondent No. 1 argued that the present Revision Petitions arise out of the impugned Order dated 05.03.2020 passed by the State Commission in First Appeal Nos. 585 to 589 of 2018, whereby the appeals preferred by the complainant were allowed and the Opposite Parties were directed to pay compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e., 08.09.2016, till realization, along with litigation costs of Rs.33,000/-. It was argued that the complaint was founded on the specific assurance and representation made by the agents of the Opposite Parties that the "Chinni" variety of muskmelon seeds would yield higher production. However, contrary to such representations, the crop failed to produce the expected yield, and the fruits that matured were black in colour, bitter in taste, and unfit for marketing. The learned counsel asserted that, as per the technical report of the Krishi Vigyan Centre, Patiala, the said variety was not recommended by Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, and the seeds supplied were of substandard quality, which resulted in substantial financial loss to the complainant. It was also pointed out that the Chief Agriculture Officer, Patiala had suspended the licence of Kissan Sewa Kendra, Rajpura on similar grounds. It was contended that the complainants duly purchased the said seeds and cultivated them on their agricultural land. The evidence on record, including the testimony of a trader, clearly established that the produce was sold at a substantially lower rate of Rs.3/- to Rs.5/- per kilogram, as compared to other varieties fetching Rs.12/- to Rs.15/- per kilogram. This resulted in an assessed loss of Rs.9.50 per KG on a total yield of 207 quintals, thereby justifying the compensation awarded by the State Commission. On the aforesaid grounds, it was prayed that the present Revision Petitions be dismissed with costs.

11. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, being the dealers of the Petitioner, failed to appear in the proceedings after 17.01.2023 and did not file any written submissions.

12. We have carefully examined the material on record, the impugned Order passed by the State Commission, the Order of the District Forum, and the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsels for both the parties.

13. At the outset, it is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is limited to cases where there is a jurisdictional error, material irregularity, or patent illegality in the impugned order.

14. The core issue for determination in the present case is whether the complainant has been able to establish that the seeds supplied by the Petitioners/Opposite Parties were defective or of substandard quality so as to fasten liability upon them.

15. The District Forum, upon a detailed appreciation of the evidence on record, returned a finding that the complainant failed to discharge the burden of proving that the seeds were defective. Admittedly, neither any laboratory testing of the seeds was conducted, nor any expert evidence was produced. In terms of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act, where the defect alleged cannot be determined without proper analysis or testing, it is incumbent upon the complainant to obtain such evidence. In this case, the allegations pertain to quality, taste, and yield, which necessarily require scientific evaluation. In the absence thereof, the conclusion of defect cannot be sustained. The State Commission primarily relied upon inspection reports of the Agriculture and Horticulture Departments. However, careful reading of these reports indicates that the crop was healthy, with proper germination, flowering, and fruiting, and there was no disease or insect infestation. At the relevant stage, the fruits were unripe and no conclusive opinion as regards taste or quality could be drawn. Mere observation that the variety was not "recommended" by Punjab Agricultural University, cannot, by itself, lead to a finding that the seeds were defective. The State Commission, therefore, erred in drawing conclusions not supported by the record. The State Commission‟s comparison between the "Chini" variety and other hybrid varieties such as Madhu-149 and Muskan is also misplaced. Different seed varieties inherently differ in terms of genetic characteristics, yield potential and maturity period. Mere variation in yield or market price does not establish defect. Further, crop yield is influenced by multiple external factors such as soil condition, weather, irrigation farming practices etc. In the absence of cogent evidence attributing the loss solely to seed defect, no liability can be fastened upon the OPs. The record also reveals that the produce was sold in the market as evidenced by sale bills (Ex.C-9 series), which contradicts the allegation that the crop had no market value.

16. The District Forum has rightly observed that the complainant‟s own documents falsify his claim regarding absence of market value. The allegation of assurance of higher yield also remains unsubstantiated, as no documentary evidence has been placed on record to prove any such representation. The packaging itself clarifies that the image is only representative of the variety. Also, the Petitioners filed I.A. No. 3893 of 2025 for taking additional documents on record. Considering that the documents pertain to licensing and regulatory compliance and are relevant for proper adjudication, the same are taken on record. However, even otherwise, the complainant has failed to establish defect in the seeds. It is also evident from Form. R issued to the Petitioner vide Registration No.1119 by the Directorate of Agriculture, Punjab on 28.10.2015 was valid till 27.10.2018. Therefore, the contentions that OPs have not produced any evidence on record that they had conducted trial of the said seed in the area of Punjab and were not authorised to distribute the seeds is untenable.

17. In view of the foregoing deliberations and after due consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant failed to establish any defect or deficiency in the seeds supplied by the OPs. The findings recorded by the learned District Forum are well-reasoned and do not suffer from any illegality, whereas the State Commission has erred in reversing the same on an incorrect appreciation of evidence. Accordingly, Revision Petition Nos. 1067 to 1071 of 2020 are allowed. The impugned Order dated 05.03.2020 passed by the State Commission in First Appeal Nos. 585 to 589 of 2018 is set aside, and the Order dated 12.09.2018 passed by the District Forum dismissing the complaints is affirmed.

18. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

19. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.