Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member

The present Revision Petitions (RPs) have been filed by the Petitioners against Respondents as detailed above, against the order(s) dated 05.01.2023 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Telangana (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission'), inter alia praying for setting aside the order(s) of the State Commission. Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) on 09.04.2025. Parties also filed their Written Arguments / Synopsis.

2. As issues / law points and opposite parties involved are the same in these RP(s), these are taken up together, with RP No. 63 of 2025 as lead case . For sake of convenience, parties will also be referred to as they were arrayed before District Forum. Similar orders have been passed by the State Commission in other cases. Details of RP(s) covered under this order, their corresponding FA, CC No. before the District Commission , name of the complainant, names of OPs before the District Commission are given in Table at Annexure-A. Delay in filing the RPs was condoned vide this Commission's order dated 14.10.2025.

3. Brief facts of the case, as presented by the Complainant and as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that complainant is an agriculturist and purchased Hybrid Chilli Tejaswini (MHP) Mahyco seeds, 4 pouches of 10 grams each for Rs. 1120/- vide bill no.26 from the OP No.1 He sowed all the said seeds in his land and observed all the required formalities as per directions of the Mahyco Company.(OP No.2) Unfortunately, there was no proper flowering and fruit didn't ripen normally. The fruit should turn into red colour and the size was also not normal. There was variation in the fruit colour and most of the fruits have fallen, as such the yield was almost nil. The complainant alongwith other farmers approached the Horticulture Officer, Mahubudabad and requested to inspect the crops in their village. Higher Agriculture Officers visited and inspected the fields and gave report stating that there is 30% admixture in the crop and opined that there will be reduction of yields. The complainant sustained loss due to impurity and substandard seeds supplied by the OP(s). Complainant alongwith farmers issued legal notice to the OP(s) but OP(s) gave evasive reply. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed CC before the District Forum and District Forum vide order dated 07.02.2019 allowed the Complaint. Being aggrieved, OP No.2 only filed an Appeal(s) before the State Commission, which was I were allowed vide State Commission's order dated 05.01.2023. Therefore, the Petitioner(s) are before us now in the present RP(s).

4. Here it is important to note that in RP No. 63 of 2025 the Consumer Complaint (CC) filed before the District Forum by the complainant ( Petitioner herein) there were 2 OPs, OP No.1 was M/s Vasavi Fertilizers, Pesticides and Seeds (respondent no.2 herein) and OP No.2 was Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd ( respondent no.1 herein). As per the orders of the District Forum, complaint was allowed qua both the OPs and liability was fixed jointly and severally against both the OPs. The said order of the District Forum is reproduced below:

                   21. In the result this complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to deposit before this Forum a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards crop loss and to pay Rs.20,000/- per acre towards expenditure incurred by the complainant and to pay Rs. 5000/- towards costs within one month from the date of receipt of the order.

5. However, it is only OP No.2 which challenged the order of the District Forum before the State Commission in FA No. 277 of 2019 and the appeal was allowed by setting aside the impugned order. No appeal was filed by OP No.1 to challenge the said order of District Forum. In this regard, we refer to Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which is reproduced below :

                   24. Finality of orders.-Every order of a District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall, if no appeal has been preferred against such order under the provisions of this Act, be final.

6. In accordance with the above stated provision of Section 24, as no appeal has been filed by OP No.1 to challenge the order of the District Commission, it has become final as regards OP No.1 is concerned. Hence, even if State Commission found merit in the appeal filed by OP No.2, at the most it could have modified the order of the District Commission as regards liability of OP No.2 is concerned. Quashing the order of the District Commission altogether i.e. against both the OPs - OP No.1 and OP No.2 is not legal in view of provisions of Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act. Hence, to this extent, order of the State Commission suffers from material irregularity. Hence, we will examine the present RP and legality of the State Commission in appeal only qua OP No.2 i.e. Respondent no.1 herein ( Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd.). Hence, the discussion in the paras that follows are only with respect to examining merits of the order of the State Commission and contentions of the Petitioner herein as regards liability of OP No.2 before the District Commission, who was appellant before the State Commission and respondent no.1 before us.

7. As regards OP No.1 before the District Commission, who opted not to file any appeal before the State Commission, the order of the District Commission has attained finality in accordance with Section 24. Similarly, as regards other 18 connected matters are concerned, in these cases also, except Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd., who was OP No.2 before the District Commission in these 18 cases covered under this order, other OPs i.e. OP No.1, OP No.3 as per the details given in Annexure-A have not filed any appeal before the State Commission. Hence, in these 18 cases as well, the order of the District Commission has attained finality as regards OP No.1 and OP No.3 in RP No. 72 of 2025 and RP No. 76 of 2025 are concerned. ( OP No.3 where ever they are party).

8. Vide order dated 21.01.2025, the counsel representing the Petitioners submitted that some mistake has crept in the memo of parties and therefore, he sought liberty to correct the same and was directed file an amended memo of parties. The application were accordingly allowed.

9. In RP No. 63 of 2025, Petitioner has challenged the Order of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

                   a. State Commission failed to understand that it is undisputed that there was an admixture of 30% as per the reports. The admixture in itself will cause harm to the crops and hence defective products were sold to the Petitioner which resulted in complete spoilage of the crops.

                   b. State Commission erroneously held that there are many factors and as is not clear that the crops were spoiled because of the seeds.

                   c. State Commission did not follow the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M Madhusudhan Reddy (2012) 2 SCC 506. State Commission did not consider the Seed Act and Rules that the duty to proof shall lie on the person selling the seeds

                   d. It is the respondent who is to take care and test the genuinity of the seeds. Respondents are in contravention of many provisions of the Seed Act.

                   e. Burden lies on the respondent and not on the petitioner to determine the quality of seeds.

                   f. State Commission should have taken cognisance whether the respondent Seed Co. proved by way of acceptable evidence as to the seeds purchased by the Petitioner were not impure and did not yield proper germination.

                   g. State Commission totally misconstrued the deposition of Sri Hanuman Naik, Scientist and Dr. P. Venkat Reddy, Horticulture University, Guntur.

                   h. State Commission should have seen that there is no acceptable evidence on record by the Seed Co that on account of climatic conditions, there was no proper growth.

                   i. State Commission should have seen that bill dated 03.07.2010 indicates that seeds which are certified can be sown in both rains fed ans well irrigated lands and should have held that rainfall is not very much material for growth of crops.

                   j. State Commission should have seen that if seeds supplied to them by the Seed Cos are not defective, it is obligatory on their part to take such samples out of such lot of seeds.

10. Heard counsels of both sides. Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the FA, based on their FA/Reply, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

                   10.1. The learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that, at the time of purchase, Respondent No.1 (dealer) assured the Petitioner that the chilli seeds were of good quality, purity, and germination, promising a yield of 30-35 quintals per acre. Relying on these representations, the Petitioner, being uneducated, purchased and sowed the seeds over 3.38 acres of fertile, well-irrigated land after the onset of monsoon. All agricultural practices, including use of manure, pesticides, and advice from the Horticulture Officer, were duly followed. Despite proper care, the Petitioner obtained a poor yield with evident admixture and defective flowering. Upon complaint, an official committee comprising senior horticulture scientists and officers inspected the affected fields and, in its report dated 02.12.2010 (submitted on 13.12.2010), confirmed 30% admixture in the crop, attributing the loss to substandard seeds. The representatives of the Respondents were present during inspection but took no remedial action. Though Respondent No.2's emissary initially assured compensation, no action followed. It was contended that the seeds supplied by the Opposite Parties were spurious, substandard, and impure variety of seeds, which fact is supported by Expert Report. The seeds supplied, sold and marketed by the Opposite Parties were not in consonance of the prescribed standards and procedure. Respondent No.2 failed to furnish any details pertaining to the seeds supplied to the farmers and approved seeds by the Government. Opposite Party No.2 failed to produce recognition certificates, Government approvals, or independent laboratory test reports for the year 2010 as required under the Seeds Act, 1966 and the Consumer Protection Act. The affidavit of Dr. Arti Joshi, Assistant Manager (Quality Assurance), admitted that the seeds were manufactured by their Company, but they failed to file any permission certificate or laboratory test report. Learned counsel relied on various sections of Chapter VI of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmer's Rights Act, 2001. It is also argued that it is not denied by Respondent No.2 that Petitioner did not sustain admixture of seed supplied and sold to him. Further, packet which the petitioner purchased contains the name and address of respondent no.2 at the place of manufacturer/marketer/producer. Learned counsel also relied on the various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Commission, inter alia following:

                   a. National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M Madhusudhan Reddy and Anr.

                   b. Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. Vs. Alavalapati Chandra Reddy (1998) 6 SCC 738

                   c. RP No. 1833 of 2015 decided on 09.02.2016.

                   d. RP No. 635 of 2012 decided on 23.02.2017

                   e. FA No. 1260 of 2008 decided on 12.01.2011

                   10.2. It is argued by counsel for the respondent that 5 RPs ( RP Nos. 63, 73 to 76 of 2025) out of 19 cases are barred by limitation under Consumer Protection Act as they were filed beyond the mandatory statutory period of two years from the date of cause of action accruing as seeds were purchased on 03.07.2010 while the complaint was filed on 04.02.2013. The complaint filed before the District Forum is manifestly vague, deficient in material particulars, and fails to disclose The specific lot or batch number of the seeds allegedly purchased; the actual yield obtained in comparison to the claimed expected yield, the cultivation practices adopted, the irrigation methods employed during the crop period. It is also argued that in two connected matters, two different petitioners have submitted purchase bills that, while bearing ostensibly different dates, were purportedly issued by the same dealer and inexplicably carry the identical bill number and this anomaly creates a strong and irrebuttable presumption that atleast one of these document is fabricated. . Petitioner has failed to comply with the mandatory requirement under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, which necessitates that allegedly defective goods be subjected to proper testing in a recognised laboratory before initiating consumer proceedings. The Petitioner's failure to undertake such scientific testing renders the complaint legally unsustainable and procedurally defective. Furthermore, the Petitioner has failed to produce essential documentary evidence, including the empty seed packet, which would have conclusively established the purchase of seeds from the Respondent and the specific lot number involved. It is also argued that field inspection report dated 02.12.2010 was conducted without any prior notice. The seeds were purchased in July 2010 while the inspection was conducted on 02.12.2010, after 153 days. The inspection was done at the fag end of the crop cycle when the plants were already reaching maturity.. Further, the report pertains to an inspection of fields belonging to merely five complainants from one village, limited to 3 fields. Counsel further argued that even assuming that some degree of admixture was observed in the field, such admixture cannot be equated with or attributed to any defects in the seeds . There exists no evidence whatsoever to establish that any admixture originated at the manufacturing stage or during the packaging and distribution process. Further, reports cannot be preferred over comprehensive scientific labotratory prepared by accredited institutions. The initial and primary burden to prove that seeds supplied were defective rests upon the complainant. Counsel also argued that respondent no.1 is renowned and reputed organization and has multiple prestigious accreditations and certifications like International Seed Testing Association, ISO 9001 Certification, Recognition as a Research Institution and State of Art Quality Control Laboratory. Counsel also argued that Dr. Aarti Joshi, Assistant Manager and an expert affirmed that all disputed seed lots were manufactured in strict accordance with the standards prescribed under the Seeds Act and relevant Indian Standards. Further, it is argued that despite the fact that numerous other farmers in the region purchased the seeds from same lot numbers and cultivated under similar conditions, no other complaints have been filed regarding seed quality or performance. Further, the seeds were purchased by the Petitioner for large-scale commercial cultivation with the primary objective of generating substantial profits through sale in the market. The quantum of purchase, the scale of cultivation and the commercial intent establishes that transaction was of business-to-business nature. It is further contend by the counsel for respondent no.1 that due to unprecedented heavy rains during the initial period after sowing, several farmers' nurseries suffered damage, compelling them to fill the gaps with seedlings of locally available varieties. The counsel also relied on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and National Commission:

                   a. Haryana Seeds Development Corp. Ltd. Vs. Sadhu and Anr. (2005) 3 SCC

                   b. Mahyco Seeds Company Vs. bassappa Channappa Mooki and Ors, CANo. 2428 of 208

                   c. Syngeta India Ltd. Vs. P Chowdaiah and Ors. 2013 SCC Online NCDRC 658

                   d. Mahyco Seeds Ltd. Vs. Venkata Subba Reddy 2011 3 CPR 35

                   e. Zimindara Agro Center vs. Sukhdev Singh and Anr. 2017 SCC online NCDRC 260

                   f. Mahyco Vs. Garapati Srinivas Rao 2014 SCC Online NCDRC 260

                   g. Mahyco Seeds Ltd. Vs. Srinivash and Ors. - RP No. 3525 of 2007

                   h. Indo American Hybrid Seeds and anr. Vs. Vijaykumar Shankarrao and Anr. MANU/CF/0307/2005

                   i. Mahyco Vegetqble Seeds Ltd. Vs. Sreenivasa Reddy 2012 SCC Online NCDRC 132

                   j. National Seeds Copn. Ltd. Vs. M Madhusudhan Reddy 2012 2 SCC 506.

                   h. Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd. Vs. Ishwarbhai Baburao Thakara 2016 SCC Online NCDRC 49.

                   i. Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd. Vs. BYedukondalu and Ors. RP No. 2272 of 2010

11. The District Commission vide its order dated 07.02.2019 has partly allowed the complaint with following directions :

In the result, this Complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to deposit before this Forum a sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards crop loss and to pay Rs. 20,000/- per acre towards expenditure incurred by the complainant and to pay Rs. 5000/- towards costs within one month from the date of receipt of the order.

12. The Appellant herein i.e. Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd. was OP No.2 before the District Commission. The appeal filed by OP No.2 ( appellant herein) was allowed by the State Commission and order of the District Commission was set aside. Extract of the relevant portion of the order of the State Commission is reproduced below:

                   10. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

                   11. The Appellants/Opposite Parties have not filed their documentary evidence in this C.C. before the District Forum, Warangal. However, since it pertains to the same batch of seeds, we refer to the exhibits filed and marked in CC.No.115/2011 bearing FA.No.447/2018.

                   12. On perusal of the material placed on record, it is evident that the Respondent/Complainant has Ac 3.00 guntas of land and purchased seeds from the Appellant/Opposite Parties for Rs. 1,120/- vide Ex.AI. He purchased 4 pouches of Mahyco Tejaswini Chilli seeds vide batch No.200399 on 03.07.2010. Unfortunately there was no proper flowering and the yield was almost nil. He approached the Horticulture officer, Mahaboobabad and based on their inspection report, the Forum below allowed the complaint as stated above.

                   13. The grounds raised in this appeal are that the Forum below failed to consider the exhibits filed by the Opposite parties/Appellants and the report of the committee did not specifically refer to their company seeds.

                   14. All the exhibits filed in C.C. are common to all the complaints and the discussion is based on these documentary evidence.

                   15. We have perused Ex A5 and the observation made by the committee are reproduced for emphasis: (This document is not 15. there in this case).

                   "The farmers of Modugadda Thanda have raised different hybrids vi., Virat hybrid(Higene Seeds), Capsi (Sinnova Seeds) Sri Teja (Sri Bio Tech Seeds) and Tejaswini (Mahuco Seeds). Due to continuous rains in some of the fields stunted growth and twig drying was observed. In most of the fields flowering and fruiting was noticed.

                   "In the fields of Sri Bhuke Lalu (2.5 acres) and Sri Bhanuthu Virendra (2.0 Acres) of Modugadda Thanda of Dornakallu mandal and Sri Malath Sandya (2.0 Acres) of Reddyala Somala Thanda of Mahaboobabad mandal who raised Sri Teja of Sri Bio Tech Seeds as per their version, 30% admixtures were noticed and hence there might be a chance for reduction of yields.

                   16. This report is certainly not conclusive and it is only a generalized observation that the farmers have raised different Hybrids and as per their version 30% admixtures were noticed and there might be a chance for reduction of yields. The team was not provided with the description of the Hybrid on the day of inspection i.e., 02.12.2010.

                   17. In the complaint, reference is not made to the fact as to when the seeds were sown. Normally sowing months are May to June for Kharif crop and September to October for Kharif crops. If they are grown as summer crop then January to February are months that can be chosen. The complainant has not mentioned when the seeds were sown and at the time of inspection the committee has also referred that due to continuous rains - stunted growth and twig drying was observed. The complainant also failed to report the grievance to the opposite party and only sent a legal notice dated 17.02.2011 vide Ex.A4.

                   18. Only based on the Committee report where nothing about the quality of seeds is alleged, it is very difficult and unfair to infer that the Appellant/Opposite parties have supplied poor quality or defective seeds.

                   19. The impugned order failed to consider the exhibits filed by the appellant/opposite parties Ex.B7- is issued by Minister of Science and Technology Department of Scientific and Industrial Research Technology Bhavan New Mehrauti Road, New Delhi-11001 and is a valid recognition of the in house R & D units of the appellants.

                   Ex.B8 also includes the certification issued by International Seed Testing Association and the Accreditation is valid for three years commencing on 08.08.2008. The seeds were purchased in the year 2010 when the accreditation was valid.

                   Ex.B2 is issued by Certificate Of Accreditation Certificate 'D' Accreditation Akkreditierungsattest their lab test report dated 18.08.2009 and the lot No: 200405 has got genetic purity of 99.61%.

                   20. The quality control laboratory report implies a guarantee that the seed sample is representative and that it was packed as proper storage conditions, seed moisture content insect infestation, after satisfactory laboratory test. Instead of considering these reports in the proper light, the impugned order observed that they are self serving statements/certificates and have no value in the eye of law. The seeds were already analyzed and standard procedures have been followed and adhered appellant/opposite parties. The complainant has only relied on the to by the observation of the committee which does not is anyway specify that the seeds were defective and therefore he suffered the immense loss due to poor yield. He has not placed anything on record to substantiate the loss in yield.

                   21. Without a proper investigative report or photographs of the crop taken by the Agricultural Officer during the crop season, it is improper to conclude that the seeds are defective. Samples were not drawn by any investigating officer for assessing germination percentage. No material evidence has been provided by way of evidence by the agricultural officers or inspecting committee. The District Commission has not properly appreciated these facts in a proper perspective. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

                   22. In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned order. The Appellant is permitted to withdraw the statutory deposit, if any, made to the credit of this appeal together with accrued interest thereon.

13. The only document relied upon by the Petitioner herein in support of their allegations that crop loss has happened because of seeds being spurious is the report dated 02.12.2010 of a Committee consisting of Sri Hanuma Naik, Scientist ( Hort), HRS, Kalyal, Sri. M. Madhusudhna, Assistant Director of Horticulture, Warangal and Sri P Raghu, Horticultural Officer.

The said report is reproduced below:





14. The State Commission after taking into note of this report has observed that this report is not conclusive and there is only a general observation that farmers raised different hybrid and as per their version 30% admixtures were noticed and there might a chance of reduction of yields.

15. Counsel for R-1 on the other hand have drawn our attention to bill dated 03.07.2010 which shows purchase of 2 different varieties and submitted that only Tejaswini Chilli belongs to OP No.2 while other seed Capci belongs to some other supplier I manufacturer, which shows that complainant / farmers have used 2 different varieties of seeds and mixed them at the time of sowing in their field and hence, it cannot be said with certainty that seeds of OP No.2 was spurious and led to crop loss. He fairly submits that in some of the cases, seeds purchased are of only OP no.2. Counsel for OP no.2 has also drawn our attention to their laboratory report to show that germane percentage was 99% as per first report and 94% as per second report. He has also drawn our attention to the letter dated 24.05.2011 from Ministry of Science and Technology, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research vide which recognition of In-house R & D Unit(s) have been renewed upto 31.03.2016. They have also drawn our attention to similar certificate issued by International Seed Testing Association Certificate of Accreditation showing that accreditation is valid for 3 years commencing 09 October 2014. State Commission also took note of these documents while deciding the appeals before it. These two certificates are also reproduced above:





16. We have carefully gone through the report of the Committee relied upon by the Petitioner herein and are of the view that Committee without taking any sample of the seeds and I or subjecting them to any kind of laboratory test by mere visiting the fields of some of the complainant / farmers have observed that 30% admixtures were noticed. This Committee, even if having expert in their fields, by mere visiting the fields and seeing the crop could not have given such a finding about quality of the seeds. Thus, it cannot be the basis for concluding that OP No.2 supplied spurious seeds leading to crop loss, which might have been caused due to multiplicity of other factors. Initial onus to prove that seeds were defective or spurious or of inferior quality was on the complainant which they have failed to discharge. Hence, no liability can be fixed on the OP No.2 merely based on the above stated report.

17. Legality of the order of the State Commission dated 05.01.2023 in FA No. 277 of 2019 as regards OP No.2 ( Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd.)

In view of the foregoing, especially our discussion in para 4 above, we are of the considered view that as regards liability of OP no.2 i.e. Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd., State Commission has rightly concluded that merely based on the report of the Committee referred to above, they (OPs) cannot be held liable but at the same time, State Commission went wrong in setting aside the order of the District Commission altogether against both the OPs. To this extent, order of the State Commission suffers from material irregularity and needs modification. Hence, we hereby modify the order of the State Commission, upholding its observations and findings qua OP No.2 only, who was appellant before the State Commission. Hence, quashing the District Commission's order altogether is not sustainable. The order of the State Commission is modified in such a way that order of the District Commission stand modified to the extent of fixing liability on OP No.1 only and not on OP No.2 Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd.. The order of the District Commission will operate with liability against OP No.1 only.

18. The issues involved in other 18 RPs, details of which are given under the table at Annexure-A to this order, are also similar. In all these cases also, reliance has been made by the petitioners on the same report of the Committee and similar rival contentions have been raised by both sides. In these 18 RPs, as regards 16 RPs are concerned, there were 2 OPs. While in RP No. 72 of 2025 and 76 of 2025, there were 3 OPs but in these two cases, liability was fixed jointly and severally on OP No.1 and OP No.2 only. No liability was fixed on OP No.3. In these 18 cases also, OP No.1 has also not challenged the order of the District Commission. Hence, on the lines of our observations in para 4, order of the District Commission has become final as against OP No.1. Hence, in these 18 cases also, on the lines of our order in RP No. 63 of 2025, the order of the State Commission and District Commission are modified to the extent that only OP no.1 shall remain liable.

19. 19 RPs covered under this order stand disposed off in accordance with above orders modifying the order of State Commission and District Commission that only OP No.1 before the District Commission will remain liable as the order of the District Commission has become final against OP No.1 in accordance with Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

20. Pending IAs, if any, in all these RPs, if any, also stand disposed off.