Sudhir Kumar Jain, Member

Briefly stated the relevant facts as appearing from the record are that 12 complainants arrayed as respondents no 1 in present revision petitions (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainants') who were farmers by profession and were having agricultural lands in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The complainants purchased the 'Hybrid Maize Seed variety 8008' (hereinafter after referred to as 'the maize seeds') from the respondent no. 2/the opposite party no. 2 namely R.J. Patidar & Company, Vidhi Agro Agency and Shri Krishna and Company (hereinafter referred to as 'the opposite party no. 2') which were manufactured by M/s J. K. Agri Genetics Limited /the petitioner in present revision petitions/the opposite party no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the opposite party no. 1). The opposite parties assured the complainants that the said Maize seeds were of excellent quality and would yield excellent produce and yield. The complainants have purchased 10 packets of said maize seed @ Rs. 1,100/- per packet weighing 4 kg each for total consideration of Rs. 11,000 from the opposite party no. 2. The complainants sown the maize seeds in their respective fields and also used the insecticides and manure etc. as per instructions. However, the grains were not formed in the corns even after 120 days of the showing of maize seeds which caused infertility in the crop. The complainants made complaint to the officials of the opposite party no.1 who inspected the seeds and reported that the yields were not formed in the coms and the crop had completely destroyed. The officials of the opposite party no. 2 also prepared the site examination report. The officials of the local Agricultural Department also inspected the crop who after inspection reported that the maize seeds prepared and manufactured by other companies had yielded good crops but the maize seeds prepared by the opposite party no. 1 being low quality could not yield desired produce/crops. The complainants assessed that one packet maize seed would yield 30 quintal produce and the cost of one quintal maize coms comes to Rs.2,500/- and in this way the complainants assessed their losses. Accordingly, twelve farmers/the complainants namely Mukesh Kumar, Kishorelal, Bhuvaniram, Rameshwar, Narayan, Rameshchandra, Satyanarayan, Arun, Dharmendra, Om Prakssh, Ashok and Girdhri filed seperate consumer complaints bearing C.C. no. 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 74 and 75 of 2019 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against J. K. Agri Genetics Limited i.e. the opposite party no.1, R. J. Patidar & Company i.e. the opposite party no. 2, Vidhi Agro Agency i.e. the opposite -party no.3 and Shri Krishan & Company i.e. the opposite party no.4 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mandelshwar (M.P.) (hereinafter referred to as 'the District Forum'). The complainants also alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties due to their negligent act and dereliction in the services. The complainants in their complaint also claimed compensation on account of mental pain and agony.

2. The opposite party no. 1 filed its reply wherein denied the allegations of the complainants and stated that the opposite party no.1 produced excellent quality of seeds which were subjected to many quality tests before selling in the market. The opposite party no.1 had given permission to the opposite party no. 1 for sale of the seeds in the market. The opposite parties also sold the same quality of maize seeds in other areas to different famers where they could yield good crops without any complaint or problem of infertility. The opposite party no.1 also stated that infertility, if any was caused due to increase in the temperature which resulted in drying of the pollens at the time of fertilization process. The proper temperature at the time of fertilization (pollination) should be between 25 to 35 degrees whereas at the time of pollination the temperature was very high and as such desired crop could not be yielded due to high temperature but it cannot be said that the said maize seeds were of poor quality. The opposite party no. 1 also filed another reply wherein stated that the complainants sown the maize seeds in their fields during the period from 25 December to 5 January which was not a best season and was not recommended by the opposite parties. The ideal time for sowing of the maize seeds is in the month of October - November but when the complainant had shown the seeds, the temperature was very high i.e. 35 degree and due to this pollination could not be properly happened and process of fertilization was got badly affected. The complainants could not establish on record the financial losses as caused to them. The opposite party no.1 prayed that the complaints be dismissed.

3. The opposite party no.2 was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte before the District Commission.

4. The complainants have submitted affidavits in evidence along with requisite documents. The opposite party no 1 also filed affidavit of Rajinder Pattidar along with documents.

5. The District Forum vide order dated 18.08.2022 has allowed the 12 complaints filed by the different complainants and directed the opposite party no.1 to pay compensation for each packet hybrid maize seeds to each complainants / farmers @ Rs.24,864/- for whatever packets have been purchased by each complainant along with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of the complains till realization besides Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation on account of mental agony and financial loss and Rs. 5,000/-being cost of litigation. It was also directed to the opposite party no. 1 to mention necessary information on the pamphlets pertaining to the maize seeds.

6. The District Forum did not find that the quality of the maize seeds was poor after assessing the documents submitted by the contesting parties. However, the District Forum has taken a note of what was written on the pamphlets exhibit P-12 pertaining to the maize seeds. The District Forum has observed that it was not mentioned on the pamphlets about appropriate month/season for sowing of the maize seeds and what would be the period of pollination and fertilization. It was further observed that said pamphlets were not containing any information regarding appropriate temperature which was necessary for sowing of the maize seeds. The District Forum has also observed that required were compulsory to be brought to the knowledge of the complainants being the farmers and if they were not aware about these facts then they may remain directionless for want of proper directions. The District Forum opined that the opposite party no.1 had given misleading advertisement amounting to improper trade practices. The relevant observations made by the District Forum in paragraphs 16 and 19 of Order dated 18.08.2022 are being reproduced herein below:

                   16. This District Consumer Commission does not find the quality of the hybrid maize 8008 poor but as to how its crops should be taken, in this connection has not mentioned the scientific procedure, proper guidelines, proper time of pollination etc., the opponent company has not mentioned in its pamphlet and has given instruction for its sowing in each season which is definitely misleading advertisement and has hidden important fact. Due to this reason, the opponent, which the motive to earn more profits, has exhibited improper trade practices which is dereliction in service. .

                   19. As a resultant, the complainant party has been successful in proving his complaint against the opponent no. 1. Therefore, the following order is passed in favour of the complainant and against the opponent no.1:-

                   (1) The opponent no.1 should pay compensation amount for each packet hybrid maize seed to each complainant / farmer @ Rs. 24,864/- (Rs. twenty four thousand eight hundred sixty four) for whatever packets have been purchased by each complainant accordingly and on the above amount from the date of submission of complaint till recovery, also pay interest @ 8 percent per annum.

                   (2) The opponent no.1 should separately pay to each complainant / farmer for the physical labour financial, mental and dereliction in service Rs. 50-50 thousand separately.

                   (3) The opponent should pay to each complainant / farmer, in the term of expenses Rs.5-5 thousand separately.

                   (4) The opponent no.1 should remove from pamphlet of hybrid maize seed and necessary information should be written in detail.

                   (as per translated copies furnished by the opposite party no. 1)

7. The opposite party no.1 being aggrieved filed 10 Appeals under Section 15 of the Act bearing FAs no 1152, 1153, 1154, 1155, 1156, 1157, 1158, 1159, 1160 and 1561 of 2022 respectively before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') against different complainants and the opposite party no. 2/ R.J. Patidar & Company and Shree Krishna & Company to challenge the common order dated 18.08.2022 passed by the District Forum. The State Commission vide order dated 22.03.2024 (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned Order') has partially accepted the 10 appeals and set aside the directions contained in sub-para (1) of paragraph 19 and upheld the directions contained in sub-paras (2), (3) and (4) of paragraph 19 of common order 18.08.2022 passed by the District Forum.

8. The State Commission in impugned order has observed that the quantity of any crop depends on agro climatic circumstances and various biological and non-biological factors and in the absence of concrete basis evidence or fact, the order of the District Forum to make the payment for compensation does not appear to be justified particularly when the District Forum itself considered that the quality of the maize seeds was not bad. The opposite party no 1 has not adduced any conclusive evidence to establish that the temperature should be remained between 25 to 35 degree that at the time of pollination process and no such information was mentioned on the pamphlets to make the consumers more aware. The State Commission has also observed that the opposite party no.1 has not adduced any conclusive evidence or information regarding the ideal time of sowing the maize seeds and the precautions to be taken by the complainants in respect of insecticides, herbicides, manure and chemicals etc. The State Commission ultimately observed that such information should have been mentioned in simple language on the packets/the pamphlets of the maize seeds so that the agriculturists can use them properly.

9. The opposite party no. 1 being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the State Commission filed the present 10 revision petitions bearing R.P.s No. 2049, 2050, 2051, 2052, 2053, 2054, 2055, 2056, 2057 and 2058 of 2024 under Section 21(b) of the Act against the complainants and R.J. Pattidar & Company and Shri Krishna & Company on the ground that the State Commission has not appreciated the documents placed on record and the complainants could not produce any cogent and credible evidence in support of their allegations regarding the quality of the maize seeds prepared by the opposite party no.1. The impugned Order was passed in contravention of well-established principle of law. The complainants did not plead any allegations of misleading advertisement by the opposite party no.1 in their complaints as such the State Commission has committed an error while granting compensation for misleading advertisement. The complainants could not substantiate inference of unfair trade practices on the part of the opposite party no.2. The complainants being farmers are supposed to know about sowing and harvesting process. The opposite party no.1 has mentioned all the relevant information on the pamphlets of the maize seeds as per statutory requirements. The opposite party no. 1 also challenged the impugned Order on the various other grounds. Accordingly, it was prayed that the present revision petitions be allowed and the impugned order passed by the State Commission be set aside.

10. We have heard Ms. Hansika Sharma, Advocate for the opposite party no.1. None appeared on behalf of the complainants to advance arguments and vide order dated 08.10.2025 complainants were ordered to be proceeded against ex parte. We have also considered the relevant records including the order passed by the District Forum and the impugned order passed by the State Commission. We have also considered written submissions submitted on behalf of the opposite party no 1. The complainants have not filed written submissions on record.

11. The counsel for the opposite party no.1 argued that the complaints were based on false and fabricated facts and the complainants could not prove their allegations as such the complaints deserve dismissal. The maize seeds were tested and certified in conformity with applicable quality standards. The maize seeds could not be fertilized due to negligence of the complainants and deviation from recommended agricultural practices and not to because of any inherent defect in the maize seeds. The maize seeds were sown by the complainants during the period from 25.12.2018 to 05.01.2019 which was not recommended period for sowing the maize seeds rather appropriate period for sowing the maize seeds is mid-October to mid-November. The report dated 29.04.2019 which was prepared by the local Agricultural Department also confirmed the said fact in which it was pointed out that the delayed sowing exposed the maize crop to elevated temperatures during pollination phase. The counsel for the opposite party no. 1 also referred the report of Directorate of Maize Research (Indian Council of Agricultural Research), New Delhi published in 2012 in respect of sowing seasons of maize along with the research paper "Thermal Stresses in Maize: Effects and Management Strategies" wherein it is referred that the ideal time for sowing maize seeds in the State of Madhya Pradesh is 15 October to 15 November. It was also argued that the District Forum has unlawfully allowed the complaints in the absence of any scientific supporting evidence, expert opinion or the seed testing report. The counsel for the opposite party no. 1 also argued that the State Commission upheld the findings of "unfair trade practice" solely on the point of not mentioning the important relevant information on the pamphlets/ packets of the seeds to be sold to the complainants but this information was within the knowledge of the complainants being farmers and was not required to be published. The opposite party no.1 has clearly mentioned on the seed packets that the maize seeds may be shown in the summer season which was also established form the Government's Maize Report and there was no expert or technical evidence to establish on record that the wording in the pamphlet was the proximate cause of the alleged loss caused to the complainants being the farmers. The State Commission has failed to appreciate that the inherent uncertainties and various uncontrolled conditions in agricultural sector such as crop performance is the outcome of complex, interactions between seeds, soil health, irrigation patterns etc. and the seeds cannot be held responsible on the basis of conjecture or sympathy especially in the absence of any expert evidence or technical test pertaining to the maize seeds. The counsel for the opposite party ultimately argued that the impugned order passed by State Commission be set aside. The counsel for the opposite party no.1 has also cited the certain case laws as mentioned in the written arguments filed on 16.10.2025.

12. It is not in dispute that the complainants were farmers and having agriculture lands in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The complainants have purchased 10 packets of the maize seeds from the opposite party no. 2 manufactured by the opposite party no.1 each weighing 4 kg at rate of Rs. 1,100/- per packet. The complainants had sown the maize seeds in their respective fields but even expiry of 120 days expected produced could not be resulted. The complainants also reported the matter to the opposite party no.2 and the local agricultural department who after inspection reported that the maize seeds prepared and manufactured by other companies have yielded good quantity and quality of crop. It was also reported that due to rise in temperature in the months of December to January when the said maize seeds were shown by the complainants, there could not be proper pollination and as such grains were not formed in the crop. It is also on the record that appropriate season in the State of Madhya Pradesh for sowing the maize seeds is October to mid-November and the said fact is also established by the report dated 29.04.2019 prepared by the local Agricultural Department. The counsel for the opposite party no.1 has also pointed that the ideal time for sowing the maize seed in the State of Madhya Pradesh is 15 October to 15 November. The complainants have not filed any technical evidence or expert opinion to establish on record that less production/yield was due to sub-standard quality of the maize seeds sold by the opposite party no. 2 to the complainants. The District Forum has also observed that the quality of the said maize seeds was not poor which was also affirmed and upheld by the State Commission. We are in agreement with the arguments advanced by the counsel for the opposite party no.1 that there was no defect in the quality of seed which was tested and certified before placing in the market for selling and the poor yield and produce of the maize seeds was due to the reason that the complainants had sown the maize seeds in the month of December and January rather appropriate season for sowing the maize seeds in the State of Madhya Pradesh is from 15th October to 15th November. We are also in agreement with the findings of the District Forum and the State Commission and also arguments advanced by the counsel for the opposite party no.1 that due to high temperature, there could not be proper pollination in the maize seeds and as such grains could not be formed in the crops.

13. We have also considered another issue that the complainants have not pleaded about misleading advertisement and further appropriate instructions or directions were not mentioned by the opposite party no.1 either on the pamphlets or on the seed packet even then complainants are entitled to get compensation as awarded by the District Forum and affirmed and upheld by the State Commission. The District Forum in our considered view has rightly observed that the opposite party no. 1 did not mention either on the pamphlet or seed packets about the scientific procedure to be followed by the farmers at the time of sowing of maize seeds along with proper guidelines and these were important facts required to be brought within the knowledge of the complainants being the farmers. The State Commission in impugned order has also rightly observed that quality of any crop depends on many agro-climatic circumstances and various biological and non-biological factors and the opposite party no.1 has not submitted any conclusive evidence to prove that the temperature should remain in between 25 to 35 at the time of pollination process and this information was required to be mentioned on each packet of the maize seeds to make the complainant aware about sowing process of the maize seeds and these were important facts for sowing the seeds. The State Commission has also rightly observed that the opposite party no.1 did not mention the ideal time or season and the precautions to be taken by the complainants for sowing the seeds such as use of insecticides herbicides, manure and chemicals. We are also in complete agreement with the findings of the State Commission that such instructions should have been mentioned in simple language on the packets of the maize seeds and the pamphlets so that the maize seeds can be used by the complainants being farmers. We are not in agreement with the arguments advanced by the counsel for the opposite party no. 1 that the State Commission has upheld the findings of 'unfair trade parties' solely on the contents of not mentioning of the important relevant information on the pamphlet/the packets of the said maize seeds before selling to the complainants and this information was within the knowledge of the complainants being the farmers and not required to be published. The complainants being the farmers are illiterate and ignorant and may not be aware about the complexity of sowing of the maize seeds in their fields as detailed herein above. We are of the opinion that requisite important aspects pertaining to the sowing of maize seeds should have been mentioned either on each maize seed packet or the pamphlets. The complainants have suffered due to lack of proper care and diligence on part of the opposite party no 1 as the opposite party did not and failed to furnish requisite information regarding sowing of maize seeds to the complainants. It is not material that there was no defect in the maize seeds manufactured by the opposite party no 1. Accordingly, the complainants are entitled to get the compensation as awarded by the District Forum which was affirmed by the State Commission.

14. We after considering arguments advanced on behalf of the opposite party no 1, case law and other material are of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the State Commission. The District Forum and the State Commission have given the almost similar findings and scope of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. There is no material infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the State Commission. It is accepted legal proposition that National Commission in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate the evidence led by the parties like an appellate court. The Supreme Court in Rubi Chandra Dutta V United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269 held that the scope of Revision Petition is limited and such powers can be exercised only if there is some prime facie jurisdictional error appearing in the order. The Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Maity V State Bank of India & others, AIR 2022 SC 577 held as under:-

The revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

15. We do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the State Commission affirming partially the order passed by the District Forum. Accordingly, the present Revision Petitions being devoid of merit are dismissed and the pending applications, if any also disposed of.