JUSTICE V.K. JAIN (ORAL)

The complainants/respondents purchased seeds of Lot No.MAR-04-20-03-18 from the petitioner. The said seeds were sown by them in their respective fields. Alleging that the said seeds were defective and, therefore, did not culminate inadequate germination, they approached the concerned District Forum by way of separate consumer complaints, seeking compensation from the petitioner Corporation.

2.      The complaints were resisted by the petitioner Corporation which claimed that the seed was of standard quality.

3.      The District Forum as well as the State Commission having ruled in favour of the complainants, the petitioner approached this Commission by way of Revision Petition Nos. 2297 of 2016 and 1329 of 2016. The aforesaid revision petitions came up for hearing on 5.1.2017 when the learned counsel for the petitioner placed on record a Revalidation Report dated 16.8.2010 in respect of seeds of several lots including Lot No. MAR-04-20-03-18. He also submitted that the Revalidation Certificate was valid for six months. The petitioner was permitted to file the aforesaid document before the District Forum. The orders passed by the Fora below were set aside and the District Forum was directed to decide the complaint afresh after considering the aforesaid document and also considering the additional evidence, if any, produced by the complainants.

4.      Pursuant to the order passed by this Commission, the District Forum considered the Revalidation Report but ruled again in favour of the complainants. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner Corporation again approached the concerned State Commission by way of two separate appeals. The said appeals having been dismissed, the petitioner is before  this Commission.

5.      The petitioner had filed before the District Forum the affidavit of Mr. Himmat Singh Rao, Agriculture Research Officer posted at Seed Testing Laboratory, Chittorgarh. He was also cross-examined before the concerned District Forum. In his cross-examination before the District Forum, Mr. Himmat Singh Rao clearly stated that the seeds were stored in tin shed and not in cold storage. He also stated that this seed which was initially of 2004 lot was not sold to any other farmer between May 2004 to 30.9.2010.

6.      The report of Mr. Himmat Singh Rao clearly shows that the seed was not stored in proper environment. It is recorded on the Revalidation Report itself that the seed storage conditions, seed moisture contents, insect infestation and various environmental factors may effect seed quality after satisfactory tests. It was further stated in the report that the responsibility for controlling these factors in order to maintain seed quality rests upon the seeds men. Therefore, the petitioner was under an obligation to store the seeds in appropriate conditions. The possibility of the seeds having become defective on account of having been stored in tin shed instead of being stored in cold storage cannot be, therefore, ruled out. Hence, the Revalidation Report by itself would not prove that there was no defect in the seeds sold by the petitioner to the complainants. As noted by the State Commission, evidence had been produced by the complainants to show that the germination was poor. Therefore, the order passed by the Fora below awarding compensation to the complainants on account of sale of defective/non-standard seeds to them does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petitions are, therefore, dismissed.