CRP/3618/2025 of VNR Seeds Pvt. Ltd Vs Bussari Rajeshwar Rao on 9 January 2026

ORDER:

This civil Revision Petition is dismissed in terrrs of the conrmon order dated lg.l2.2g?5 passed in C.R.p.No .llls of 2025' and batch. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- A. SREENIVASA REDOY REGISTRAR ,TTRUE COPYII SECTION OFfICER

l. The National ConsurnerRedressal New Delhi 2- The State Consumer Redressal Commission

3. The District Consumer Redressal Commission at Warangal.

4. One CC to Sri K.Anirudh Reddy; Advocate {oPUc}

5. One CC to Sri P.Ravi Shankar, Advocate (oPUc) Copies_---W \ To,

6. Two CO Ks/PSL (annex a copy of rhe Order dated 19.12.2025 inC.R.P.No.l 175 of Z02S and batch to this order)

€

HIGH'COURT DATEr':09r01 12026 CRP,No.36{8 of 2025 Dismissing the C.R.P. Without costs. iATE ..: .:rj -.'"s r' oO 1 $ tEB 2$?[ -!: 9l,\,t

crp_1175 2025.docx - crp_l 175 2025.pdf Itttps://csis.slrc.gov.in/trcordersl2025 lcrylcq _ll7 5 2025.p< 2t

KI. J CRP No.l 175 of2025 & Batcb HIGH COI'RT FOR TIIE STATE OF TELATTGAI\A AT ITYDERABAI) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE I( LAKSHMAIY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 1175. 1196. 1197. 1198. 1201. 1202. 1203. L205. 1206. 1210. l2l!.1222.1249.1260.1264 .1266. 1279. 1290. t281. 12g2. l2g3 .1294.1293. 1314. l32o .1321.1324 .1325 .1326, 1327. t340. 1346. 1372. 1373.1377.1392.1393.1407 .1409. 1409. 1494. 1485. 1486. 1487. 1488. l4gg.1490. l4gl.1492.1493.1494. 1495. 1496. 1497. 17 24. 17 25. t7 26. 17 27 . 17 43. 17 44. 17 45. 17 46 . 2017. 17 47. 17 49. 17 49. I750. 1753. 1821. 1822. 1924. 1923. 1925. 1926. 1827. 1828. 1929. 1830. 1831. 1945. 1946. 1947. 1949. 1949. 1959. 1E59. 1960. 1E61. 1962. 1963. 1864. 1865. 1g67. lg6g. 1g6g. 1g70. 1g71. 1g72. 1g73. 1g74. 1g76. 1g77. 1878. 1880. 1892. 1893. 1994. 1995. 1996. 1997. lEgg. 1999. 1921. 1923. 1926. 1929. 1940. 1957. !959. lg5g.1972. lgg3. 1999.2000.2001,2002. I 2t4,1. 2149.,2150. 215t. 2154. 2155. 21tr6. 2157. 2163. 2164. 2165. 2t77. 2 184. 2324. 232s. 2696. 2326. 2344. 2346. 2345. 2347. 23 48. 237 4. 2380.

ctp_1175 2025.docx - crp-l 175 2025.pdf htps://csis.shc.gov.in/trcordesl2025 I crpl crp _ll7 5 2025.pd| r'_

KL, J CRP No.l 175 of2025 & Batch 2698. 2699. 27 00. 27 01. 27 02. 27 03. 27 0 4. 27 14. 27 15. 27 16. 27 l7 . 27 18. 3086. :1097. 3100. 3088. 3109. 3179. 3114. 3161. 3166. 3167. 3168. 3169. 3l 3184. :1185. 3186. 3187 . 3207 . 3208. 3209. 3225. 3227. 3239. 3240. 3249. 3502. 3;503. 3504 OF 2025 Betwer:n VNR Seeds Private Limited and other .Petitioners and Linganrpalli Ravinder and others Respondents

215/2026,4:50 PM

crp_ll75 2025.docx - crp_1175 2o25.gf KI", CRP l.b.l t75 of2025 & Barch The Court passed the following

COMMON ORDER:

Heard Mr. Ankit Swaroop, Mr. Drupad Sangwan, Mr. N. Pavan Krishna Reddy, Mr. Rishi Bhargava, Mr. Rrrchil Raj, Ms. Harika Tejavath, Ms. Duvnrru Ruthitca Reddy, M. M. Naga vekata Neeraj and Mr. K. Anirudh Reddy, rearned counsel for respective petitioners and Mr. Kunamalta Karunakar, Mr. p.Ravi Shankar and Mr. P. Aravind Reddy, teamed counsel for respective respondents. 2- All these revisions arise out of common order dated 06.01 .2025 passed by learned National consumer Disputes Redressal commission, New Delhi (for short, 'leamed NcDRc') in Revision Petition No.l376 of 2024 and batch, whereby learned NCDRC had upheld the orders passed by learned Distict Forum by setting aside the orders passed by learned State Commissiea wherein State commission allowed some appeals filed by the peitioners, in part, reduced the quantum of compensation granted by leanred District hqs://csis.S,hc.gov.in/hcordersl2025l crpl crp_ll7 5 2025.pt

2/5/2026,4:50 PM

crp ll75-2o25.docx - crp-l175 -202 5.pdf httss://csis. tshc. gov.in/hcorderv2o25/crdcrp-l I 75-2025'Pdl E . KI. J CRP I.Io.l175 of2025 & Bd.h Foruln and allowed some appeals in toto, set aside some of the orders passed by the District Forum in respect of some farmers -

3. Since there are multiple revisions, it would be difficult to discuss facts of all the cases. Further, the facts of all the cases are similar, except the names of parties and the quantum of compensation gratrted. There is no dispute with regard to the facts. Therefore, to avoid confusion and to have more clarity, it would be better to refer to the fa<';ts of the case in CRP No. 1203 of 2025.

4. The revision petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It engaged in the business of seed production and sal es having its registered office at Raipur, :i. Respondent No.l is a farmcr and resident of Agrahampahad village, Atmakur Mandal, Warangal District, Telangana State and is claimirg to have been cultivating chilli crops for the last few years.

215D0-6,4:50 PN

W_1175 ]025.docx - crp_l I 75_2025.pdf -- r"

KI. J CRP No.ll75 of2025 & Barch

6. It is also apt to note that even other farmers/complainants residents of the said village and other nearby villages of warangat district, claiming to have been cultivating chilli crop for the last few years

7. Respondent No.2 is a dealer, who sold the soeds to the farmer. Respondent No.l - farmer purchased ten (10) packets of MrlR 145 chilli seeds on 07.03.2017 from respondent No.2 dealer vide Lst No.l870 after paying an amount of Rs.3,300/- manufactured by Respondent No.l. Thereafter, respondent No.r sowed the seeds in an area measuring Ac.l.00 guntas in the month of April, said to have incurred an amount of Rs.40,000/- for cultivating the land.

8. According to respondent No.l - Farmer, there was crop loss due to supply of defective, mis-branded, genetically poor chilli seeds

9. Upon a letter written by various farmers onM.07.2017 with regard to alleged bad condition of crop, the Distict collector, warangal, informed the same to the Agriculture officer, Joint Director of Agriculture and District Horticulture and Sericulture hsps://csis.tstrc.gov.inlhcorde rsl2025l crp/ crp _ll7 5 2O25.p, crp _ll7 5 2}25.docx - crp-l 175- 2025.pdf Officr:rs. Later, the District Agricutture Officer, vide letter dated 07.07.2017 directed the Mandal AgriculUrre Offrcer to conduct joint inspection with the Horticulture offrcer and report compliance at the earlier;t.

10. The Mandal Agriculture officer, vide letter dated lO.O7.2Ol7, informed the Asst. Director of Agriculture, Telangana DNA Frnger Printing Crops monitoring Lab that he is sending green chillies leaves of 50 plants (randomly selected) for analysis. The Joint District-Level committee conducted a visual inspection on I [ -07 -2017 and subsequenfly submitted its report, stating that the crop had been severely affected by 'Thrips incidence', during the initial crop growing stage, attributed to the prevalence of high temperatures. Further it was stated that the crop was affected by viral diseases such as PBIW @eanut Bud Necrosis Virus) and CMV (Cucumber Mosaic Virus) which led to poor growth. .[1. Thereafter, on 0[.08.2017, the Genetic Purity test report was submitted to the District Agriculture officer, Warangal, and the Cornmissioner of Agriculture, Telangana have concluded that, sample https://csis.tshc. gov.iry'hcordes/2O25 I crpl crp -ll7 5 ]025.pd| (', KL, J

l0 of99 21512026,4:50 PV

ctp _ll7 5 2025.docx - crp_ll7 5 ]025.dt https://csis.tstrc.gov.in/bcoderV2025 I crf, ctp _ll7 5 _2025.p<

KI" J CRP No.l 175 of z)25 & Barch taken from the field and the sample given by the Manufacturer- petitioner differed and termed thern 'Misbranded'

12. The respondent No. t approached the tearned District consumer Forum, warangal, by filing a consumer complaint bearing No.199/2018 under section 12 ofrhe consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein aftet'' Act, 1986") to direct the Petitioners herein to pay compensation for the alleged crop loss and other expens€s incurred with regard to the crop failure. Likewise, other similarly situated farmers also filed complaints with similar contentions. The Learned District Consumer Forum has allowed the complaints in part holding that the petitioners herein - opposite parties are jointly and severally liable and directed them to deposit a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- (One Lakh Thirty Five Thousand only) towards crop loss for Ac.l.00 guntas of land with interest @7.5o/o p.a. and ro pay Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand Rupees only) towards mental agony, legal expenditure including costs with one month from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.

13. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned District Forum, the Petitioners herein have preferred appeals in State I I of99

cry_1175 2025.docx - crp-I175. 2025.pdf L2 Comrnission under Section 15 of the Act, 1986 vide Appeal No.7()3/2020 and batch. Vide orders all dated 07.11 .2023, the learned State Corrmission has allowed some appeals in part and some appeals in toto, reduced the quantum of Compensation awarded by the District Constrmer Forum in some appeals, directing to pay a sum of Rs.67,500/- to the Respondent No.l/Complaint along with Rs. 10,000/- towarrls costs of the titigation within eight weeks.

14. Against the orders passed by the State Commission, Hyderabad, the Petiti and farrners - complainants have filed Revision Petitions under Section 2l(b) of the Act of 1986 before the leamerl NCDRC. The learned NCDRC has disposed of the Revision Petitions vide commonorder dated 06.01 .2025. The learned NCDRC has upheld the orders passed by the learned District Forum, and has set asirle the orders passed by the State Commission. t5. The Petitioners have filed these Civil Revision Petitions against the said common order dated 06.01 .2025 passed by the learned NCDRC, New Delhi. htps://csis.tshc.gov.in/hcorde rs/2025 I crpl ap -ll7 5 2025 -fi1 a-. . KL,J

21512026,4:50 Ptv

ctp _ll7 5 2025.docx - crp _1175 ]025.pdf

16. rf,fe have heard leaned counsel for the petitioners and respondents {onsumers extensively.

17. At the initial stage of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents did raise an objection as to the maintainability of the present civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, upon further hearing and after adverting to the seffled legal position, both leamed counsel ultimately agreed that the petitions are maintainable. The issue of maintainability is, in any event, no longer res integra. In M/s. Indus Hospitals v. Rajeev Lochan Singht (C.R.P. No. 2gg4 of 2024, decided on 02.05.2025), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in paragraph 45, has categorically held that a Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against an order passed by the NCDRC under Section 58(lxb) of the Consumer Protecrion Act, 2019, as such an order is not appealable and the learned NCDRC answen the description of a "Tribunal". The said conclusion was reached by tQ02s) 3ALD 801 htps://csis.tshc.gov.infircorde ls12025 I crplc,rp _ll7 5 ]025.p< KI., l3 of99 215/2026,4:50 PM

ctp _ll7 5 2025.docx - crp-l I 75- 2025.pdf L4 https://csis.shc. gov.in/hcorde rsl 2025 I crp I ctp -ll7 5 -2O25 -pdl t-" KI. J CRP No.l 175 of2025 & Batcb placing reliance on the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in lbrat Faizan Y. Omaxe Buildhorne Pvt. Ltd.,2 whictr recognizes the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court over tribunals. [n view of the aforesaid binding precedent and the consensus ultimately recorded between the parties, the objection as to maintlinability stands answered, and the pnesent Civil Revision Petitions are maintainable.

18. Definition of cConsumert' under the Consumer Proter:tion Act.

i) The present batch of matters requiros an authoritative exami::lation of the meaning and ambit of the expression "consumer " as employed in Section 2(1Xd) of the Act of 1986 and its successor provis:on, Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereirrafter, "the 2019 Act"). Both enactrnents are products of Parliarnent's resolve to protect individual purchasers and recipients of service.s from exploitation by economically dominant market actors. The slatute is, therefore, remedial and beneficent in nature; its provisions must receive a liberal and purposive construction '(zozl) lr scc 594 l4 of99 2/5/2026,4:50 PM

ctp _ll7 5 J025.docx - crp _ll7 5 ?l25.df consistent with the objective of consumer welfare rather than be confined by narrow or technical interpretation.

ii) Section 2(1Xd) of the 1986 Act defined a consunrer as any person who buys goods or hires or avails services for consideration, but does not include a person who obtains such goods or services for resale or for any conrmercial purpose, save where such goods or services are used exclusively for earning a livelihood by means of self-emplo1m.ent. This formulation reflects a deliberate legislative balance between consumer protection and commercial freedom. The 2019 Act, through Section 2(7), substantially re-enacts the same language, signiffing legislative continuity and endorsemenr of the interpretation placed upon the earlier Act by the Courts.

iii) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.I( Gupta3, characterized the Act as a "social-welfare legislation" desigued to provide inexpensive and expeditious redressal to consumers. The Court observed that provisions of such welfare 3 lreel; r scc243 hrps://csis.tshc. gov.in/hcorde rsl2025 I crp/crp_ll7 5 _ZO25.pc KL, ' CRP No.l 175 of2025 & Barct

2/5t2026,4:50 PM

cry-1175 2025.docx - crp-I175 2025.pdf

- KI.J CRP No.l 175 of2025 & Batch statutes must be construed in a manner that advances their object and suppresses the mischief they intend to remedy. The ratio was subsequently reiterated in Kusum Sharma Y. Batra Hospitala, which held that the Act's reach extends to every sector public or private when: goods or services are offered for consideration.

iv) The definition of consumer thus admits of two essential elements:

a) the existence of a transaction of purchase or hiring for consicteration, and

b) the exclusion of transactions for resale or commercial purpose.

v) The latter exclusion, however, is tempered by the statutory exception for livelihood-based self-employment. The clause was designed to prevent large-scale conrmercial enterprises from invoking the Act while ensuring that individuals engaged in small or subsistence-based activity are not deprived of its protection. Judicial interpretation has consistently emphasised that this exclusion must be ' lzottr;3 scc 480 hups://csis.shc.gov.io/hcordersl2025 I crpl crp -ll7 5 2025 -pdl tt'\

215/2026.4:50 PV

crp_ll7s 2025.docx - crp_I175 2025.pdf L7 lrtps://csis.Slrc.gov.inlhcorde sl 2025 I crpkrp _ll7 5 2O25.g. ' Kr'J CRP No.l 175 of2025 & Batch narrowly constnrd, lest the remedial purpose of the legislation be defeated.

vi) The Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works v. pSG Industrial Institutes, intoduced what has come to be known as the dominant-purpose test. It held that the determination whether a transaction is commercial must depend on the dominant purpose for which the goods or services are obtained. where the dominant purpose is to eam livelihood by setf-employment, the purchaser remains a consumer, where it is to engage in large-scale commercial exploitation for profit, the exclusion applies. This doctrinar development has guided subsequent judicial reasoning for nearly three decades.

vii) Following Laxmi Engineering (supra), the consumer fora and High courts have uniformly held that the definition of consurner must be interpreted with functional realism, focusing on the nature of use rather than the scale of activity. The expression "commercial s lress;3 scc 583 l7 of99 215/2026,4:50 PM

ctp _ll7 5 2025.docx - crp-l I 75-2025.pdf

KI. J CRP No.l 175 of2025 & Batcb purpose" cannot be read in a rigid economic sense divorced from the statutt:'s welfare objective. The true test is whether the transaction bears the characteristics of consumption that is, use for personal benefit or livelihood rather than of commerce.

viii) In Emaar MGF Land Ltd. v. Aftab Singh6, the Supreme Court further clarified that the Consumer Protection Act provides an additional and special remedy, and must be constued harmoniously with its underlying policy of consumer welfare. The jurisdiction of the consurner fora is thus to be interpreted expansively to effectuate, not to limit, the right of the consumer to seek redressal.

ix) Read conjointly, these authorities establish that the term consunrer under both the 1986 and 2019 Acts is not confined to a contractual purchaser in the ordinary mercantile sense but extends to any person who buys goods or avails services for consideration in order t,r satisff personal, domestic, or livelihood-related needs. The exclusi,)ns for resale and commercial purpose are exceptions to this

1zo re1 r 2 scc 751 hups://csis.shc.gov.in/hcorde rs/ 2025 I crpl crp -ll7 5 -2025.pd|' ( l8 of99 2/512026,4:50 Plv

crp _lL7 5 2025.docx - crp_l I 75_2025.pdf htqs://csis.Shc.gov.in/hcordes/2o25l crp/crp _ll7 5 2025.pd

KI" I CRP l.Io.l 175 of2025 & Batch broad rule and must be strictly proven by the pafty asserting them. The legislative continuity between the two Acts, coupled with sustained judicial interpretation; reinforces a single principle that the expression consumer must be consfiued purposively and liberally to promote access to justice for individuals who, as end-users, depend on the fairness, competence, and integnty of suppliers and service- providers.

x) Accordingly, this Court holds that for the purpose of adjudication under the Consumer Protection Act, a consumer is any person who purchases goods or avails senrices for consideration for personal or livelihood use and not for resale or profit-oriented enterprise. The determination in each case must rest upon the dominant purpose of the tansaction, viewed in its social and economic context. Such interpretation alone gives full effect to the beneficent purpose of the enacfuent and aligns with the consistent exposition of the law by the Supreme Court of India.

2/5t2026,4:50 PM

crp_l175_2025.docx - crp-l 175. 2025.pdf

19. htps://csis.tshc.gov itlhcordersl2025 I crpl crp _l I 1 5 -2O2 5.pd: a,'

- xr4 J CRP No.l U5 of2025 & Bdch a 'rs ,

i) The issue whether a cultivator purchasing seeds for sowing can bc regarded as a "consumef' within the meaning of the Consumer Prote(:tion Acts has engaged the attention of judicial fora for over three decades. It arises here in a cluster of complaints wherein the respondents small and marginal farmers allege defective hybrid seeds and n:sultant crop failure. Resolution of this issue tums upon the proper construction of Section 2( I )(d) of the 1986 Act and its successor provision, Section 2(7) ofthe 2019 Act. :.i) Both provisions adopt the same legislative scheme, a consumer is any person who buys goods or avails services for considr:ration, but does not include one who does so for resale or for any co:nmercial purpose, save where such goods or services are used exclusively for earning a livelihood by means of self-employment. This e:,:press saving clause reflects the Legislahre's intent to shield those engaged in livelihood-based activity even where such activity

21512026,4:50 PN

crp_1175 Jn25.docx - crp_l 175 2025.pdf hfips://csis.Shc"gov.in/trcorde rs/2025 I crpl crp _ll7 5 2025 N

KL, ' CRP tb.l 175 of2025 & Batch incidentally yields income. The exclusion for "coimmercial purpose"

iii) Applyrng that principle, th€ National Commis5iell in Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. v. Alavalapati Chandra ReddyT, held that cultivators who purchased h)forid seeds for their own fields were consumen under tbe Act, and that the seed company's plea of "commercial use" was misconceived. The Court observed that the scale of cultivation is immaterial so long as the dominant purpose is livelihood, and rejected the argument that sale of the produce in the market converted the activity into commerce. The ruling marked the frrst authoritative recognition of agriculturists as consumers within the stanrtory framework.

iv) This reasoning was taken forward in Nandan Biomatrix Ltd. v. Ambika DeviE, where the National Commission held that failure of germination in Jatropha Curcas seeds constituted deficiency in service and that the complainant farmers, harring purctrased the '1reer;6 scc 738 I2ozo 13 scc l3o 2l of99 2/5/2026,4:50 PM

crp_l 175_2025.docx - crp_l175-_2025.pdf htps://csis.shc.gov.ini1rcorderV2025/crp/crp_1175 2025.pdt C

KL, J CRP No.l175 of2025 & Batcb seeds for their own cultivation and not for resale, were consumers. The Commission emphasized that agricultural operations carried on for livelihood are excluded from the expression 'tommercial purpose", even ifthey yield marketable surplus.

v) The law now stands conclusively settled by the Supreme Court in National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. M. Madhusudhan Reddyq. The Supreme Court, after examining the scheme of the Seeds Act, 1966 and the Act of 1986, held that a farmer who purchases seeds tor his own use and not for resale is a consumer, and that supply of delbctive seeds resulting in crop loss amounts to deficiency in senrico. It.was categorically obsewed that the fact that a cultivator sells his produce in the market does not make the tansaction commercial, since such sale is a natural incident of livelihood and not an act of trade. The Court directed the seed corporation to compensate the farmers and reaffirmed that the statute must receive a liberal and purposive interpretation to fulfill its welfare objective. e lzotzlz scc 506

21512O26,4:5O PM

cry _ll7 5 _2025.docx - crp_l I 75 2025.pdf htps://csis.tshc.govjn/trcorde rs/ 2025 I crpl crp _ll7 S 2025.pc :

KI" CRPNo.ll?5 ,J of2025 & Batch

vi) Following Madhusudhan Reddy (supra), a oonsistent line of authority has developed. In Fortune Hybrid Seeds Ltd. v. Bommala Pedda Swamyro, the learned NCDRC? relying on departmental and laboratory reports that established low germination and genetic impurity, held that the farmers were consumers and that the manufacturer's plea of adverse weather was untenable in the absence of scientific proof.

vii) These precedents collectively establish that the Act must be applied in its social-economic context. furiculture in India is primarily a means of livetihood, not commerce, the cultivator is a consumer who relies on representations and scientific expertise of seed companies. To exclude such persons woulddefeat the beneficent purpose of the statute and perpetuate structural inequality between corporate suppliers and rural purchasers.

viii) This purposive construction also accords wittl the constitutional vision embodied in Articles 38 and 39(b) of the r0 2015 SCC Online learned NCDRC 325

A5/2026,4:50 PM

crp_ll't5 2025.docx - crp-1175- 2025'pdf https://csis.shc.gov.in/trcorders/2O25 I cr! cry -ll7 5 2025 -pd',

-KL, J CRP No.l 175 of2025 & Batch Constitutioa of India, which require the State to secure social and economic justice and ensure equitable distribution of resources. By recogllzing fanners as consumers, the judiciary has harmonized con$lmer law with agrarian policy, ensuring that statutory protection exter.ds to those most vulnerable to market asynmetries.

ix) Accordingly, this Court holds that agriculturists who purchase soods or other agricultural inputs for cultivation undertaken for their own livelihood squarely fall within the definition of consumer under Section2(7) of the 2019 Act. The mere fact that such cultirration yields income or involves sale of produce in the market does not alter its character. What is decisive is the dominant purpose that the goods are purchased for use in livelihood and not for commercial resale.

x) To hold otherwise would be to deny the very class of persons whorn the legislation was designed to protect. The cultivator is not a trader in soeds but an end-user of them, he consumes, rather than markets, the product. In the absence o[ any contrary legislative intent,

215/2026,4:50 PM

crp _ll7 5 3O25.docx - crp _ll7 5 2025.pdf https://csis.tstrc.gov.iry'trcordes/2025 I crpl crp _l 17 5 2025 @

KI. J CRP No.l 175 of2025 & Batch the judicial consensus ttrat farmers are consumers under the Act must be regarded as settled law. Extent , i) At this stage, it becomes necessary to delineate the tnre import, content and extent of the expression "deficiency in service" as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act. The distinction between defect in goods and deficiency in service lies at the heart of the present controversy, for the outcome in these matters tums upon whether the acts and omissions alleged against the petitioners constitute statutory defi ciency

ii) Sections 2(lX0 and 2(lXg) of the 1986 Act, define defect and deficiency respectively as a scheme that has been substantially carried forward into Sections 2(10) and 2(l l) of the 2019 Act. 'Defecf' means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard required by law or contract to be maintained in relation to goods; while "deficiency'' refers to any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature or crp_1175 2025.docx - crp_l 175 2025.pdf htps://csis.shc. gov.iry'hcorderd 2025 I crpl crp _l 17 5 -2025.pd|

KL,T CRP No.l I75 of2025 & Batch manner of performance required to be maintained by law or undertaken in relation to any service.

iii) Section 2(11) of the 2019 Act now expressly includes within its ambit "any act of negligence or omission or commission and deliberate withholding of relevant information by such person to the consumer." This legislative amplification acknowledges the asymrneoy of inforrration between provider and consumer and broadens the statutory reach to include acts of concealment and r,nisinfbrmation a significant development reflecting the transition from a fault-based to a duty-based model of liability.

iv) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lucknow Development Authority (supra), interpreting these very provisions, held that both public authorities and private service-providers fall within the ambit of the Act, and that delay, negligence or defective work amount to deficiency in service. The Court observed that while defect in goods may be: remedied by replacement or repair, deficiency in service must 26 ot99 2/5/2026,4:50 PM

crp _ll7 5 2025.docx - crp_l I 75_2025.pdf htps://csis.tshc. gov.in/hcorde rsl&25 I crpl crp _ll7 5 J025 d

KL, ' CRP No.l175 of Z)25 & Batch ofte,n be compensated through damages, for it affects the quality and manner of performance itsetf.

v) The expression "service" itself, defined in Section 2(t)(o) of the 1986 Act (now Section 2(42) of the 2019 Act), is of the widest amplitude. It encompasses seruice of any description made available to potential users and specifically includes facilities relating to banking, finance, insurance, transport, energy, housing, construction, and dissemination of information. Gupra) described the definition as three-fold a main clause, an inclusive clause, and an exclusionary clause and observed that ttre words uant''and'lotential" are of wide import, thereby extending the Act's cov€rage from one to all categories of service.

vii) In Indigo Airlines v. Kalpana Rani Debbarmart, the Apex Court clarified that any deviation, whether by an act or omission, from the prornised or expected standard of performance " eozo)9scc4z4

U512026,4:50 PM

ctp_ll7 5 2025.docx - crp_l 175_ 2025.pdf htps://csis.tshc.gov.iry'hcorders/2025 I crpl crp _ll7 5 2025.pd| KL, J CRP No.l 175 of2025 & Barch constitutes deficiency. tikewise? ,SGS India Ltd. v. Dolphin International Ltdr2.r, held that once the complainant discharges the initiat onus, the burden shifts to the service-provider to establish that its conduct rnet the requisite standard.

viii) The jurisprudence recognizes three dimensions of deficiency: viii-a) Quatitative, where service is sub-standard; viii-b) Procedural, where there is delay or neglect; viii-c) Informational, where material facts are suppressed. Each is actionable, since the Act intends not merely to compensate but to uphold a standard of reasonableness and diligence expeoted in servic:e re lationships.

ix) The Supreme Court in Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjol Ahlu'rvalial3, extended the concept of deficiency to professional neglilJence, emphasizing that lack of due care or timely attention, even without mala fides, attacts statutory liability. Intent is immaterial, '= 2oz) SCC online SC 879 '31r908;4 scc 39

2/512026,4:50 PM

ctp_1175 mzS.docx - crp_1175 2OZ5.gf hrps://csis.tshc.gov.in/lrcorderV2 025 I crp/ crp _ll7 S _2O2S.pd

KI. ., CRP No.l 175 of2025 & Batch what'matters is performancebelow the benchmark of a reasonable and prudent professional; ,x) Th€ 2019 Act, while modernizing consumer jurisprudence thrcugh provisions on product liability and unfair contracts, consciously retained the same definition of deficiency, thereby affirming judicial precedent. This continuity reflects legislative approval of the liberal interpretation that views the Act as a mechanism to enforce standards of care, competence and fair dealing across all service sectors.

xi) Thus, deficiency in service is not confined to breach of contract but extends to any failure statutory, contractual or moral to render service with reasonable skill, care and diligence. tt may arise in both private and public transactions and encompasses negligent performance, arbitrary delay, or concealment of information. The consumer fora are, therefore, empowered to grant both compensatory and preventive reliet, ensuring accountability and deterrence.

crp _ll7 5 2025.docx - crp-l 175-2025.pdf htps://csis.tshc. gov.in/lrcorde tsl 2025 I cryl ctp -ll7 5 ]025 -& KL, J CRP No.l 175 of2025 & Batch :0

xii) Viewed in this light, the scope,of "deficiency'' under the Cons,rmer Protection Act is both remedial and'disciplinary. It serves not c'nly to compensate individual loss but also to enforce public standards of reliability and transpareircy. This Court thus reiterates that the provisions of the Act must be interpreted expansively so as to advance its beneficent object and to secure effective protection of consrlmer rights.

21. Applicabilitv of 5'Deficiencv in Selvice? to Goods and ServLces. inctuOine S .

i) The legislative scheme of the Consumer Protection Act draws a conceptuat distinction between defect in goods and deficiency in servirle, but recognizes that the two ar.e often interlinked in composite trans;rctions. Section 2(10) of the 2019 Actdefines defect as any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard of goods required to be maintained by or under any law or contract; Section 2(ll) defines deficiency with refer,:nce to the quality, nature or manner of performance of service. Together, these provisions establish that where a transaction involves

2/512026,4:50 PM

cry_1175 2025docx - crp_l 175 2025.pCf both supply of goods and related obligations of testing, storage, certification, or after-sale assistance, the failure of any element attracts statutory liability. ' I '

ii) The sale of seeds, fertilizers, or pesticides is a paradigm of such a composite transaction. The physical sale of seeds constitutes '., the goods component, but the processes of laboratory testing, genetic certification, labeling, pack4ging, ild after-sale support from the service compone,nt inseparably connected to it. As observed by the National Commission in several decisions, including Alavalapati Chandra Reddy (supra) and Nandan Biomatrix Ltd (supra), a seed company's statutory and contactual obligations do not cease upon delivery, they extend to ensuring that the seeds conform to prescribed germination and genetic-purity standards and that all representations made to cultivatoni arc accurate and verifiable.

iii) In M. Madhusudhan Reddy (supra), the Supreme Court held that the supply of defective seeds resulting in crop failure constitutes deficiency in service under the Act. The Court reasoned htQs://csis.tshc. gov.in/hcorde rsl2025 I cfl crp _ll7 5 ]025.pd KI., CRP IIo.l 175 of2025 & Batch

3l of99 21512026,4:50 PM

ctp_ll7 5 2o25.docx - crp_l I 75_-2025.pdf htps://csis.shc.gov.iry'hcordesl2025l crpl crp _ll7 5 2O25.pd

KL;J CRP No.l 175 of2025 & Buch that the responsibility of the seed-producer is twofofd, first, to deliver seeds meeting the quality standards mandated by the Seeds Act and Rules; and second, to ensure that such standards were verified and certified through competent laboratories. Failure on either count is a breach of statutory duty. The Court further emphasized that, once a complaint supported by credible laboratory or departuental reports shows sub-standard quality, the evidentiary burden shifts to the manuf'acturer to establish conformity, bare assertions of pest attack or weatht:r fluctuation are inadequate.

iv) The same principle was applied in Fortune Hybrid Seeds Ltd. (supra), where the National Commission found that laboratory analysis revealed genetic impurity and poor germination. The manuftrcturer's defense that the loss was caused by climatic conditions was rejected for want of scientific corroboration. The Commrssion held that the manufacturer's omission to disclose parent- line dar.a and testing records amounted to.deficiency in service within Section 2(lXg) of the 1986 Act (now 2(ll) of the 2019 Act),

2/5t2O26,4:50 PM

crp _ll7 5 ]025.docx - crp _ll7 5 2025.pdt observing that "suppression of material inforuration concerning quatity control is itself a form of negligence.,,

v) Similarly, in Nandan Biomatrix Ltd (supra), the National commission held that where seeds fail to germinate as represented, the defect is not confined to the product but extends to the service of ensuring quality, testing, and truthful representation. The complainant is thus entitled to redress under the head of deficiency in service even if the seeds, as tangible goods, are no longer available for testing. The rationale is that the farmer pwchased not merely a physical product but also the assurance of is certified characteristics an assurarrce forming part of the service element ofthe tansaction. vi)These principles are in harmony with the broader doctrine laid down in Lucknow Development Authority (supra), and Ghaziabad Development Authority (supra), that the consumer Protection Act must be interpreted to advance its remedial object and to make service-providers publicly accountable for negligence and arbitrariness. The provision is both comp€nsafory and deterrent, it IttQs://csis.Shc.gov.in/hcorde s/2025 tcrp/ crp _ll7 S ]O2S d WT CRP No.l 175 of2b25 & Batch

2/512026,4:50 PM

cry -ll7 5 2025.docx - crp-l 175-2025'pdf htps://csis.tshc.gov.in/trcorde s12025 I crpl crp -ll7 5 2025'pd r-

KI.I CRP No.l l?5 of2025 & Batch in-troduces a pubtic-law dimension into private comm€rcial relations ,, by hclding those who profit from such relations to standaras of faimess and diligence.

vii) It follows that the concept of deficiency in serviqe applies equally to goods where ancillary or dependent services form an integ:ral part of the transaction. The manufacturer's obligation to ensure quality, to test, to labet correctly, and to provide truthful information is a continuing service obligation. The breach Of any of these duties constitutes deficiency, notwithstanding that the tangible prodlrct itself is defective. [n such cases, defect and deficiency overlap, and the consumer fora are competent to graqt comprehelsive reliel:.

viii) Therefore, in transactions involving agricultural inputs, parti,:ularly seeds, fertilizers and pesticides, the statutory duty of care impc,sed upon the producer or distributor is both legal and moral. Any failure to comply with the standards prescribed under the Seeds Act and Rules, or to disclose relevant testing information, amgunts to crp_1175 2025.docx - crp_l I 75_2o25.pdf htQs://csis.tshc.gov.inAcorde rs/2025 I crp/crp _ll7 S ZO2S.N

KI. CRPNo.l175 T of2025 & Barch deficiency in service under Section 2(ll) of the ZOlg Act The legislative intent is to secure accountability commensurate:with the vulnerability of the consumer the fanner who, relying on the technical expertise and representations of the manufacAuror, stan& at an inherent disadvantage.

22. Burden of Proof and Evidentiarv,Standards:

i) Having delineated the legal ework of deficiency in seryice, it becomes apposite to consider the rules goveming proof and evidentiary burden in consumer disputes, particularly those involving agriculturat inputs. The statutory design of the Consumer Protection Act is remedial and informal; its procedure departs from the rigidity of the Evidence Act while retaining its essential principles of fairness and probability. Accordingly, the standard of proof is that of a p reponde rance o f probabi lities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

ii) The initial onus rests upon ttre complainant to assert and substantiate the alleged deficiency. However, consuilrcr jurisprudence has evolved the doctrine of dynamic burden-shifting, recognizing that

- 2151m26,4:50 PM

crp-!l7 5 2025.docx - crp-l 175- 2025'pdf https://csis.tshc.gov.in/trcordercl2025 I crpl crp -117 5 2025.6 I

KL,T. CRP No.l 175 of2025 & Buch thre c;onsumer especially a farmer is often ill-equipped to, access technical data or production records exclusively in the possession of the rnanufacturer or dealer. Once a complainant places credible matelial showing prima facie defect or deficiency, the burden shiffs to the opposite party to rebut the presumption through contemporaneous and l'erifiable evidence.

iii) In Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. v. Sadbula, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that when a comprlainant alleges defective agricultural inputs such as seeds, the con$rmer forum rnust carefully evaluate the findings of exPert comroittees constituted for that purpose. The Court held that such expelt committee reports carry signifrcant evidentiary weight and that mere allegations without technical scrutiny will not suffice. While app\,ing the definition of "consumer" under the Act, the Court observed that the purchase of seeds for livelihood may bring within its ambit, but the consumer forum must go beyond cursory conclusions ra AIFI2oo5 sc 2023

2/5n026,4:50 PM

crp _ll? 5 ]025.docx - crp_l I 75_2025pdf hcps://csis.tsk.gov.irvhcorde rst}025 / crp/ crp _ll7 5 _ZO2S.pd KI{ J CRP No.l 175 of2025 & Barch and consider the expert evidence relating to soil, water; climate, and seed purity before imposing underscored the jurisdictional boundary of consumer,lrorums to adjudicate fact-intensive and technicalty complex disputes only when . ' ,' . the requisite expert findings and procedural safeguards have been

iv) Accordingly, the decision in Sadhu (supra) lap down that liability for defective seeds cannot be presumed m91ely because the crop failed, the chain of causation must be supported by scientific and expert evidence, and the consumer forum must record reasons for accepting or rejecting such specialist evidence.

v) In M. Madhusudhan Reddy (supra), the Hon,ble Supreme court hetd that the primary onus to establish the quality, purity and viability of seeds lies with the manufacturer and not the fanner- consumer. The Court observed that a farmer who acquires seeds for cultivation of livelihood cannot be expectedto retain ru-fLr, comduct , elaborate testing or carry forward scientific records, therefure, the

2/5/2026,4:50 PM

cry -ll7 5 2025.docx - crp-l 175- 2025.pdf statutory,$cheme places the burden on the manufacturer to preserve batcb samples,'facititate testing and fumish evidence of quality. The Court furtber affir-med that where the manufacturer fails to produc.e retained salnples or competently rebuts testing of distributed seeds, the Jrresumption of defect crystallizes and a consumer forum will rightly place reliance on such official test reports and expert inspe,ctions as being of high evidentiary value. Consequently, the docfiine of burden-shifting in seed-supply disputes mandates that a deficiency in service or unfair trade practice may be inferred from the manufactuler's non-compliance with its evidentiary obligation withrrut necessitating the farmer-complainant to discharge an onerous technical burden.

vi) The National Commission, in a series of decisions including Fortune Hybrid Seeds l.td. (supra), and Mahyco Seeds Ltd. v. B. Yedrrkondaluls, has consistentty applied the principle, where credible departmental or expert reports disclose defect, and the manufacturer fails to funrish contemporaneous quality-control documentation, the 's 2oi,.l SCC online learnedNCDRC 32 htps://csis.tshc.gov.in/hcordetsl2025l crpl crp -ll7 5 2025 pd ; t'- : (i KL, J

ctp _ll7 5 ]O25.docx - crp_l 175_2025.pdf l) Commission has drawn an adverse inference of negligence and confirmed deficiency. It has been repeatedly held that "a manufacturer who withholds scientific evidence within his special knowledge cannot escape liabitity by invoking speculative causes."

vii) This burden structure is also justified by considerations of equrty and policy. The consumer fora were constifuted to ensure accessible justice without the procedural rigor of civil courb. Imposing upon a small farmer the onerous task of proving scientific defect beyond prima facie probability would defeat the Act's purpose. Accordingly, once the complainant produces the purchase invoice, departmental inspection report, or any accredited laboratory certificate showing sub-standard quality, the evidentiary equilibrigm shifts decisively against the supplier.

viii) At the same time, the principle of causation remains vital. The complainant must demonstrate a reasonable nexus between the deficiency alleged and the loss suffered. [ntervening causes such as flood, drought or pest attack, if proved by credible scientific evidence, hups://csis.shc.gov.in/hcorderd2025 I crpl crp _ll7 5 J025.fi KI4 J CRP No.l l7l of 201!5 & Batch crp _ll7 5 2025.docx - crp_l I 75_2025.pdf htps://csis.tshc.gov.inlhcordersl 2025 I crpl crp _ll7 5 2025 pd

KL,J- CRP No.l 175 of2025 & Batch may sever the causal ctrain. Conversely, where the official report attributes faiture to defective seeds, the manufacturer's liability becornes complete. This two-stage analysis proof of defect and proof of carlsation preserves both faimess and accountability.

ix) Accordingly, this Court affirms that in consumer disputes relating to agricultural inputs, the burden of proof is fluid and shifts with control of evidence; that scientific and departmental reports consl.itute retiable primary evidence; and that manufacturers who fail to produce contemporaneous quality-control data must bear the consequences of adverse inference. Such an approach alone realizes the remedial and preventive purposes of the Consumer Protection Act

23. Summary of the prior orders passed bv Consumer fora 23.1. District Fqrum Order:

i) On considering the evidence of the complainant (PW- I ), the DN.p. Expert (PW-2), the District Agriculture Oflicers (PWs-3 and 4), Exhibits A-l to A-12,X-series documents including departmental and DNl. reports, and the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the l-

2/5/2026,4:50 PM

crp _ll7 5 _:nz5.docx - crp_ll7 5 _2O25.pdf htps://csis.tshc.gov.in/hcodeny'2025 I crpl cry _1175 ]O25.pd 4L KI{ I CRP No.l 175 of2025 & Batch opposite parties @Ws 1-4; Exs. B-1 to B-17), the District Forum held th4t,the.complainant is a 'bonsumef', that the Seeds Act does not bar recourse to the Consumer Protection Act; the expert and deparfuental reports, having remained unrebutted by any independent scientific evidence from the seed company, conclusively established that the 'I ;.. I seeds supplied were "mis-branded" and that there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of all opposite parties.

ii) On quantification, the District Forum relying on the market value verification certificates (Exs. A-l l, A-12 I X-87 to X-90), took the average market price of chilli as {4,500 per quintal, considered the company's own yield repr€sentation (30 quintals per acre) and the fact that some yield was obtained, determined the loss at 30 quintals per acre. It accordingty awarded t1,35,000/- towards crop {oss per Ac.1.00 guntas, <35,000/- per acre towards cultivation expenses including cost of seed, and {10,000/- towards mental 4gony and litigation expenses, together with intere st at 7 .5%o p.a. from the date of complaint till realization, held that the dealer (OP No.l) and the 4l of99 2l5l2o%,4:50?M

crp_l 175_2025.docx - crp_l l7:t 2025.pdf ht$s://csis.tshc.gov. in/hcordcrV2025/crp/c tp _l I 7 5 _202 5 -pd

KL, J CRP No.l t75 of2025 & Batch manufacturer/distributors (OP Nos.2 to 4) jointly and severally liable. Thus, the District Forum partly allowed the complaints by orders all datect 19.03.2020.

23.2. State Commission ordet:

i) Challenging the said orden, 419 appeals were filed under Section 15 of the Act, 1986, by the manufacturer, to set aside District forurrLs orders dated 30.01.2020.

ii) The State Commission, upon re-appreciation of the pleadings and evidence, found that the substratum of the complaints suffered from :;erious infirmities relating to the authenticity of the purchase bill, the date of purchase, sowiug and proof of land owner;hip or lawful cultivatioo, and correlation between the quantity of see<ls purchased and the land allegedly cultivated. The Commission noted r:hat some of the complainants failed to produce original bilts, pattad?.r passbooks, lease documents, proof of irrigation or farnily membe rs certificates, and that contradictions existed between the pleaderl dates and the exped inspection period. Viewing these

21512026,4:5O PM

crp _ll7 5 _m25.docx - crp_l I 75_2025.pdf J- htps://csis.tstrc.gov.in/trcbrdesl2025l crplcrp _ll7 5 2025.pd KI. J CRP No.l 175 of2025 & Batch discrepancies as sffing at tbe root of the claim, the State : ,, Commission'held that the -District Forum had erred in granting relief without addressfng these foundational deficiencies.

iii) Proceeding on- the aforesaid reasoning, the State Commission concluded that the burden cast upon the complainant in a claim alleging defect in goods and deficiency in service had not been duly discharged.It was observed that when the very foundation of the complaint namely, proof of tawful purchase, cultivation, and temporal alignment with the alleged crop failure remains in doubt, the opposite parties cannot be fastened with liability on presumptions or conjectures. The Commission emphasized that appellate interference was warranted where the District Forum had adopted a uniform and mechanical approach in atlowing multiple complaints, without undertaking a case-specific examination of essential documents and factuat assertions.

iv) The State Cornmissi ingly held that the impugned orders of the District Forum in some appeals suffered from material irregularity and could not be sustained in law. Consequently, State ctp _ll7 5 2025.docx - crp_l I 7l;_202 5.pdf M htps://csis.shc.gov.in/hcorders/202i{ crp/crp _ll7 5 2025.pd r--,' . :': KL,J _ CRP No.l 175 of2025 & Batch Commission allowed some appeals in part,lsome appeals in toto and dismi.ssed some appeals. State Commission also dismissed 07 appeals preferred by Manufacturer for default. The appellants in some appeals were pernitted to withdraw the statutorylamount deposited to the credit of the complainants along with accrued interest.

23.3. National Commission order:

i) Challenging the said orders passed by State Commission, both the revision petitioners herein and farmers filed revisions and cross-revisions before the learned NCDRC under Section 2l(b) of the Act, 1986. The revision petitions were filed predominantly by VNR Seeds Pvt. Ltd., the manufacturer of \/IrIR-145 hybrid chilli seeds, along with its dealers, while cross-revision petitions were filed by the complainant - farmers, aggrieved by the partial relief granted by the State Clommission.

ii) the challenge before the learned NCDRC was directed against the State Commission orders whereby, while affirming the frnding that the seeds were defective, the State Commission had

2/5/2026,4:50 PM

crp_ll7s 2025.docx - crp_l175 2025.pdf https://csis.ehc.gov.intrcordesl2025 I crpl crp -ll7 5 2025 # KI' J CRP l,b.l175 of 2025 & Batch substantially reduced compensation awarded by the Distict Forum deleted the interest component, disallowed cultivation expenses including seed cost and confinrcd liability solely to the Manufacturer absolving the dealers gfanting only a nominal amount towards litigation costs in some appeals.

iii) On consideration entire record, the learned NCDRC affirmed the concurrent factual findings of the District Forum and the State Commission on the issue of defect in seeds. The Commission placed significant reliance on the District Level Committee report and the Genetic Purity Test conducted by the Telangana DNA Fingerprinting & Transgenic Crop Monitoring Laboratory, which categorically declared the seeds as "misbranded". The learned NCDRC noted that these reports were prepared by independent Government experts, were scientific in nature, and had not been rebuffed by the seed company through any independent laboratory analysis or expert testimony. Consequently, the contention of petitioners i.e. VNIR Seeds P\rt. Ltd. that the crop failure was

215/2026,4:50 PM

crp_1175 2025.docx - crp_ll7l; 2025.pdf hrps://csis.shc.gov.inlhcorderc/2025 / crpl crp _ll7 5 2025.pd '- t_ KI.I CRP NoJ 175 of2025 & Barch attributable to climatic factors, agronomic practices, or pest infestation unrelated to seed quality was rejected.

iv) On the question of quantum of compensation, the learned NCDRC found serious infirmity in the approach adopted by the State Comrnission. It held that the State Commission's method of comprltilg crop loss by mechanically assuming a uniform standard yield ,rf 30 quintals per acre and arbitrarily applying a 75yo loss factor was not founded on scientific evidence or contemporaneous market data. The learned NCDRC emphasized that farmers cannot be expected to maintain detaited yield records or preserve bills for agricu:ltural inputs, and that insistence on such documentation would defeat the object of consumer protection in agricultural disputes. The Commission observed that the District Forum had correctly relied on market price verification certificates and expert assessment of crop damagt: while awarding compensation and had adopted a pragmatic and rea I is ti c approach cons is tent with settled consumer jurisprudence.

2/5/2026,4:50 PM

ctp_1175 _2025.docx - crp_l I 75_2o25.pdf lr{ps://csis.shc.gov.in/trcorde sl2025 lcrpl crp _ll7 5 2025.N KL, ' CRP No.l 175 of2025 & Batcb

v) The tearned NCDRC fu4her held that the deletion of interest and cultivation expenses by the State Commission was unjustified, as compensation for crop loss would be illusory if it failed to account for actual expenditure incurred by farmers and the time value of money lost due to defective goods. On,the issue of liability, the learned NCDRC restored the finding of the District Forums holding the manufacturer, and dealer jointly and severally liable, observing that ': the supply chain could not be artificially severed to the detriment of the consumer once defect and deficiency were established.

vi) With the said reasons and findings, the learned NCDRC partly allowed the revisions filed by the farmets, dismissed the revisions filed by Manufacturer i.e. MrIR Seeds Pvt. Ltd., and set aside the reduction effected by the State Commission. The leamed NCDRC restored the relief granted by the District Forum in respect of compensation towards crop loss, cultivation expeff;es, mental agony, and interest. All revision petitioap and cross-revision petitions were accordingly disposed of by a oommon order. 47 o€99 2t5/2026,4:50 PM

crp_ll7 5 2025.docx - crp _ll7 5 _2025.pdf

KT. J CRP No.l 175 of2025 & Batch

vii) Challenging the said order, petitioners filed the present revlslons.

24. llontentions of the Petitioners:-

i) The complainants failed to discharge the initial burden of proving that the seeds supplied were defective, as mandated in seed- related disputes, and that no legally admissibte or scientifically reliable evidence was produced, contrary to the principles laid down in Mahyco Seeds Ltd. v. G. Shrinivash& Orsr6. and M.B. Yedukondalu (supra). The learned NCDRC erroneously relied on the DNA report dated 01.08.2017, which described the seeds as "misbranded", overlooking that "misbranding" under Section 2$$ of the Seeds Bill, 2004 relates to false labelling and does nrot ipso facto establish genetic impurity or defect, particularly when the report merely' notes mismatch of molecular profiles. The sampling and inspect.ion by the Mandal Agricultural Officer were vitiated by non- compliance with Rule 25 of the Seeds Rules, 1968, as the identity of the farmer, survey number, and source of leaf samples were not '6MANIr/cF /o3ro/2o12 hups://csis.Shc.gov.in/trcordersl2025l crpl crp_ll7 5 2025.pd (

2/512026,4:50 PM

ctp_1175 inz5.docx - crp_l 175_2025.pdf t', ,-,,-,: disclosed, and samples were taken fr'"r 'g[gw4'pldb: rendering linkage to any specific seed lot impossible. , ' . ' ' . '

ii) Inspection reports rocorded only ptrenbg-5rpicaI, observations, appropriate SSR markers, and were condugted :prematurely and without notice, depriving the petitioners of an opportunity to assist or provide correct seed samples. The genetic purity testing must involve seed-to-seed or leaf-to-leaf comparison, whereas an impermissible leaf-to-seed comparison wix adopted. Although approximately 15 different lots of 'fNR-145 chilli seeds were marketed, DNA testing was confined only to Lot No. 1870, pertaining to merely 97 out of 466 CRPs, rendering the conclusions unrepresentative. The DNA report is also assailed for not examining statutory parameters such as germination, moisture, pure seed and genetic purity percentages, while the petitioner's in-house laboratory report dated 04.05.20t7 records satisfactory results, which, it is contended, were iguored by the consumer fora, contrary to the principle in Zimidara Agro Center trtps://csis*shc. gov.in/lrcordersl2025 I crpl crp _ll7 5 J025.pd KI. J

215/2026,4:50 PM relied on non-representative and infected ,failed to use ctp_1175 2025.docx - crp_l17:i 2025.pdf https://csis.tshc.gov.in/hcondes/20251 crfl crp_ll7 5 2025 pd, KL, I CRP No.l 175 of2025 & Batch 'i-

,: v. Srukhdev, Singhr'. The official who conducted the DNAtest,lacked ,:,, the qualifications prescribed under Rule 20 of the Seeds Rules, 1968. Vt$f-t+S chilti seeds and the 'sonali' variety of Rasi Seeds as scientifically impennissible, as inspection reports themselves record Thrips infestation and viral diseases such as PBNV and CMV affer:ting both varieties, indicating pest-borne causes rather than seed defect. VllR-145 was never represented as Thrips-resistant that no causal nexus was established between susceptibility and defect, and that the complainant failed to prove adherence to recommended agronomic practices or produce vouchers for fertilizers and pesticides.

lv) the crop failure could have resulted from external factors sucl as climate, pest infestation and irrigation issues, constituting intervening causes, and that Rule 23-A of the Seeds Rules, 1968 was not c:omplied with. I72OI7 SCC ONIiNE LEARNED NCDRC 39

ctp_1l75 2025.docx - crp_1175 2025.pdf tscirril Appeal No. 6990/2014 'eR.P. No. 2602 of 2008 & Ors., decided onlZ.0Z-2014 htQs://csis.shc.gov.inrhcordcrV2025l crp/crp _l l7 5 2025.p<

- - i(I{r CRP M.l175 of 2025 & Batch

v) The complainant does not qualiry as a 'tonsumet'' under Section 2(d) of the Act, 1986, being engaged in large-scale cultivation. ;, The improbability of the crop timeline is also stress4 as seeds purchased on l l .05.2017 could not have matured by July 2017. The State Commission had rightly interfered with the Disfrict Forum,s orders based on thurnb-rule assessment.

vi) The finding of the learned NCDRC with regard to deficiency by misreading evidence, disregarding binding preoedent, is perversed warranting interference under Article 227 of the constitution of tndia. Reliance also placed on state of Haryana v. Jai Singhrt.

vii) Referring to the Expert Committee R.eport @x. X-21), agricultural literature of Professor Jayashankar ftlangana State Agricultural University, and the decisions in M. Madhusudhan Reddy (supra) and Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd. v. Garapati Srinivas Raore, petitioners contended that Thrips crp_l175_2025.docx - ctp-ll7:i 2025.df hqs://csis.shc.gov.ir/trcodcrd202s/crdcr1. -l 11 5 2025.Pdt ,^.1

KL, J CRP No.ll75of202s & Britr infestation and viral diseases constitute a novus achts interveniens, inspection reports based on visual assessment without notice are inadmissible, and absence of controlled scientific comparison or examination ofother seed suppliers vitiates the findings.

viii) Placed reliance on the cancellation of its seed licence dated 21.08.2017, which was set aside by this Court in W.P. No. 40269 of 2017 ot the ground ofnon-compliance with Rule 23-A ofthe Seeds Rules, 1968, thereby demonstrating that the regulatory action itself wari procedurally unsustainable. Ex. B-4 and Ex. 8-16 establish compliance with prescribed quality standards and also disclose that variation in yield is dependent upon agro-climatic conditions. The consistent performance and success of the same seed variety in other regions negate any allegation of inherent or systemic defect. In suppott of these submissions, reliance is placed on Sadhu (supra)' M. Madhusudhrn Reddy (supra) and Mahyco Seeds Company v. Basappa Channappa Mooki20, to contend that liability cannot be 2oci,rit ,a.ppeal No .2428 of 2008

2t5n026, 4:50 PM

crp_1175 2025.docx - crp_1175 2025.pdf https://csis.tshc.gov.in/hcorderV2025 lcrp/ crp _ll7 5 _!fi25.pd:. KL, J CRP No.l 175of2025 & Batch fastened in'the'absence,of clear, cogent and scientific evidence establishing,defect in the seeds supplied.

25. Case laws cited bv the Petitioners:

i) In Sadhu (supra), the Supreme Court held that compensation cannot be awarded in the absence of proof that crop failure was auributable to defective seeds. The Court referred the expert committee's report, which attributed poor crop performance to extraneous fa:,lgr-s suc.h as soil satinity and irrigation conditions, over a local officer's certificate. Finding no infirmity in the expert report, the Court concluded that the consumer fora erred in awarding compensation and allowed the appeal.

ii) In Mahyco Seeds Company Limited v. Basappa Channappa Mooki (supra), the Supreme Court, relyrng upon Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. (supra), held that mere variation T t p yreld cannot be attributed to defective seeds in the absence of coge,lrt evideirce. The Court found that several external factors influence crop perfonnance and that the Agricultural Officer's crp_l175_2025.docx - crp_l 17 5_2025.pdf htps://csis.tshc. gov. innuordersl 2025 I c.d crp _l I 7 5 _2O25.pd s4 KI. ' CnP No.l175 of2025 & B.tch report did not record any defect or inferiority in the seeds. In the absence of material establishing seed defect, the complaint was held to be unsustainable and the appeal was allowed.

iii) In State of Haryana v. Jai Singh (supra), the Supreme Court considered the vesting of unutilized 'tachat" land reserved during consolidation and upheld the view that such land continues to vest with the original proprietors if not earrrarked for a specific comnron purpose. Applying the doctrine of strtre declsls, the Court emphasized that a legal position followed in over a hundred judgments must be respected to preserve certainty and stability in law.

iv) ln Banta Ram u fai Bharat Beej Company Super Marku (supra). the National Commission held that the complainant failed to prove any defect in the seeds supplied, as no statutory laboratory testing was conducted in accordance with Section 13(l)(c) of the Consurner Protection Act, 1986. The ruled that field inspection reports alone are insufficient to establish seed defect in the cry _ll7 5 2025.docx - crp_l I 75_2025.pdf absence of proper sampl€'t€s1ing,'and consequently dismissed the complaint. ,r l' :.

v) In Mahyco Seeds:Ltd;,v. G. Shrinivash & Ors. (supra), the learned NCDRC held 'rthat of defective seeds must be proved through proper laboratory testing as mandated under Section l3(lXc) Commission found that the . complainants relied only on'preliminary and departmental reports without producing tegally'admissible laboratory evidence. In the absence of such proof, and compliance with statutory procedure, the complaint was dismissed. ' '

vi) In Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd. v. G. Sreenivasa Reddy (supra), the learned NCDRC held that the complainants failed to establish that the brinjal seeds supplied were genetically defective. Relying on the Commissioner's rq)ort, ttre Commission found that crop variation or mixed SIowth did not conclusively prove genetic defect in the seeds. It was reiterated that the burden of proof lies on htps://csis.strc.gov.iry'trcorde rs/N25/ crplcrp _ll? 5 -2025.pd KL,' CRP No.l175 offi2s & Barch

215t2026,4:50 PM

cry _ll7 5 2025.docx - crp_l I 7 5_2025.pdf hups://csis.tshc.gov.in/hcordersl 2025 I cryl crp _l l7 5 _2025.N

KI. r CRP No.l175 of 2025 & Batctr the complainants, and in the absence of credible evidence, the orders of the lower forums were set aside and the complainJs dismissed. :

vii) [n Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd. v. Ishwarbhai Baburao Thakare (supra), the learned NCDRC held that crop failure coulc[ not be attributed to defective seeds in the absence of conclusive laboratory evidence. Though the District seeds committee noted steril.ty and disease, it did not link these findings to seed defect, and no test report of the complainants' samples was produced. Retying on the petitioner's laboratory reports showing satisfactory germination and genetic purity and considering environmental factors, the comnrission set aside the compensation and dismissed the complaint. 'riii) In Indo-American Hybrid Seeds v. Vijayakumar Shanlcarao (supra), the learned NCDRC hetd that poor crop yield by itself rloes not establish defect in seeds or deficiency in service. The comrrrission found that the Agriculture officer's report did not conclusively attribute the low yietd to defective seeds and noted that externill flactors such as soil conditions, climate, and pesticide use

215/2026.4:50 PM

crp_1175 NZ5.docx - crp_1175 2025.pdf hQs://csis.strc.gov.idhcorders/2 025 I cryl crp _ll7 5 _N25.pd KI4 J CRP tb.l 175 of2025 & Batcb coutd affect crop perfonnanc€. In the absence of scientific testing or credible evidence proving seed defect, the compensatory orders were set aside and the complaint dismissed.

ix) In Hindustan Insecticides Ltd: v. Kopolu Sambasiva Rao (supra), the learned NCDRC held that the complainants failed to establish that the insecticide supplied was defective or caused crop damage. The Commission noted non-compliance with the mandatory testing procedure under Section l3(l)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act and relied on laboratory reports certirying conformity with ISt standards. [n the absence of conclusive proof of defect or deficiency in service, the revision petitions were allowed.

x) tn B. Yedukondalu (supra), the learned NCDRC held that the complainants failed to prove that the chilli seeds supplied were defective. The inspection reports noted deviations and pest infestation but did not attribute crop failure to seed defect, and no .laboratory testing was conducted as required under Section l3(1Xc) of the Act, 1986. Holding that the burden of proof was not discharged and that

2/512026,4:50 PM

crp_1175 2025.docx - crp_ll7li 2025.pdf htps://csis.shc.gov.in/hcordesl2025l crpl crp _ll7 5 2025.N1 r':\ l- KL,J CRP No.l l?5 of2025 & Batch the ,:onsumer fora misread the agricultural reports, the Commissio! set aside the compensation and dismissed the complaints.

xi) In Syngenta India Ltd. v. P. Chowdaiah2r, the learned NCDRC held that Thrips infestation and viral infection constifirted ptausible alternate causes for crop failure and could not, by theurselves, establish defect in the seeds supplied. The Commission observed that delayed inspections and visual assessments without sample testing were insuffrcient to prove deficiency in senrice. Hokting that the complainants failed to discharge the burden of proving seed defect, the learned NCDRC set aside ths ssmpensation awarded by the State Commission and restored the District Forum's order.

xii) In Garapati Srinivas Rao (supra), the learned NCDRC held that the complainant failed to establish defect in the seeds throrrgh scientific or laboratory evidence as mandated by the Seeds Act. The inspection reports were based on delayed visual assessments conducted without notice to the seed company and noted pest and 2t lzrlt:107 NCDRC cK ooo3

21512026,4:50 PV

ctp_Ll7s 2025.docx - crp-l 175 2025pdf -j' / .l State Commission's order and allowed the revisionpetition.

xiii) In Zimidara Agro Center,(supfa), the leamed NCDRC held that allegations of defective se€ds cannot be sustained solely on the basis of inspection reports prepared by non-accredited laboratories. The Commission found that the statutory requirement of testing through a notified or accredited governmentlaboratory was not comptied with. Due to this procedural **t* and lack of reliabte scientiFrc evidence, the complaints against the seller were dismissed.

xiv) tn Mahyco Seeds Ltd. v- G. Venkata Subba Reddy22 (supra), the learned NCDRC held that the burden to prove genetic impurity in seeds lies squarely on the complainant. The Commission noted that the inspection was conducted only after harvest, at a stage when seed defects could not be scientifically assessed. In the absence " lzon ) cPJ 99 NC https://csis.tshcgovin/trcordesl2025 I crpl crp _ll7 5 ]A25.pc

- -KI.r CRP No.l I75 of2025 & Barch viral infestation as altemate causes of:crop frilure. Holding that crop loss could result from multiple factors.and that the complainant failed , to prove sub-standard or defective seeds, the Cop1ission set aside the

215/2026,4:50 PM

crp_1175 2025.docx - crp_l175, 2025.pdf htps://csi s.shc.gov.in/hcordersl2025 lcrpl crp _ll7 5 ]025.pd| T--' KL,J -- " CRP No.l l?5 of2025 & Batch of conclusive scientific evidence establishing genetic defect, the ct4rm, was :rejected and liability was not fastened on the seed nranufacturer. l '26. (lgnteh4ons of Respondents:-

i) The present Civil Revision Petitions are gross abuse of process, as the petitioners, having. suffered concurrent sdverse findings before the District Forum, Warangal, the Telangana State Commission, Hyderabad, and the leamed NCDRC, have invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of [ndia, only to delay execution of laufiil decrees in favour of small and marginal farmers.

ii) Al[ three fora, upon exhaustive appreciation of oral and docunentary evidence including expert and governmental reports, have consistentty held the petitioners guilty of deficiency in service and unfhir tade practice in supplying defective VNIR-145 hybrid chilli seeds,

iii) l" respondents comptainants are agriculturists who purcbased \rNR-145 chilli seeds from the authorized dealer and cultivated in Warangal District, where the crop soon exhibited stunted crp _ll7 5 ]025.docx - ap _ll7 5 _2025.fit growth, poor flowering, viral infection and total loss of livelihood. lrtQs://csislshc.govfur/hcoderV20 25 lup/ ap _l 17 5 _N25.pd KI., CRP l,!o.l175 of 425 & Bard ln

iv) They deny the allegation that the are "commercial cultivators". Reliance placed on M. Reddy (supra), which recognizes farmers purchasing self- cultivation as "consumers" under Section 2(1Xd) of the Act. ; l '., I 'l' '''': ' v) Crop failure was directly attributable to genetic iApurity and ,,.,, mis-branding, supported by the DNA Fingerprintiug and Tmnsgenic . ,. ., : Crops Monitoring Laboratory Report dated 0l-08-2017 @x.'X-6), the Expert Committee Report dated 28-07-2017 (E4. X-14), the assessment of Dr. B. Ram Prasad, Entomologist, RARS Warangal (Ex. B-8), and the petitioners' own documents (Exs. B-9, B-14 and B-15) admitting long-term marketing of VNR-145 as a high-fuiting, heat- set hybrid yielding up to 160 quintals per acre. The Distict Forum, after analyzing Exs. A-l to A-12, B-1 to 8-16, X-l to X-90 and testimony of PW-2 to PW-4, rightly fastened joint and several liability on the petitioners and dealer. Though compensation was reduced by 5l of99 215/2026,4:50 PM

ctp _1175 2025.docx - crp_l l7!; 2025.pdf https://csis.tshc.gov.in/hcordesl2o25 I crpl crp _ll7 5 2025.61

KL, J CRP No.l 175 of2025 & Batch the titate Commission, the teamed NCDRC, by its reasoned order datecl 06-01-2025, restored the District Forum's order. The leamed NCDRC's decision rests on concurrent findings of fact and law, raising no jurisdictional issue for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

vi) Statutory laboratory and field reports establish non- compliance with the Seeds Act, 1966, Seeds Rules, 1968 and Seeds (Control) Order, 1983, including obligations under Sections 5-9 of the Act and Rules l3(3), l7 and 38, and that sale of mis-branded seed constitutes a per se defect and deficiency under Sections z(fl and2(g) of the, 1986 Act. The theory of climatic causation is denied with reference to temperature data (2013-2017) annexed to Ex. X-14 and the categorical findings in Ex. X-6. Although licence cancellation was set aside on technical grounds, this Court in W.P. No. 14356 of 2017 expressly preserved farrters' right to claim compensation. 'irii) The petitioners have approached this Court without fu[ disclosure of material facts, having selectively withheld the complete crp _lL7 5 _20,25.docx - crp-l 1 75-2025.pCf https://csis.tshc.gov.iryhcorde rs12025 / crp/crp -l 17 5

-pdr

- KI4, CRP No.l 175 of2025 & Batch set'of extribits and omitted to disclose that no application for,re-testing : under Section l3(lXc) of the Act was ever made dopite their Statutory obligation to preserve samples. Thus, there is suppressio:r of material evidence.

viii) The petitioners failed to pres€rve or seek re-testing of samples as required under Rule l3(3) of the Seeds Rules and Section 13(lXc) of the Act, attracting the principle in Alavalapati chandra , Reddy (supra), and that objections based on Rule 25 of the Rules; are barred by pleadings in view of Ex. X-2, relying on Neelam Gupta v. Rajendra Kumar Gupta23.

ix) Placing reliance on Ghaziabad Development Authority (supra), complainants contend that prolonged litigation against farmers, defeats the humanitarian object of consumer law. Having waited over eight years for relief, any further delay would amount to denial of substantive justice 232015 SCC Online SC 1972

A512026,4:50 Ptv

crp_l 175_2025.docx - crp_l l;'5_2025.pdf hrtps://csis.tshc.gov.in/hcordersy'2025/crp/c rp_l I 7 5 _2O25.p<

KL,I CRP No.l175 of2025 & Brrclr

x) Placed reliance on the judgments in Alavalapati Chandra Reddy; Nandan Biometrir Ltd, M. Madhusudhan Reddy, Fortune Hybrid Seeds Ltd., (supra), Seeds works International Pvt, Ltd v. Nempally Development Authority, Neelam Gupta (supra); Shrihari Limraj Karanjkar vs Ajeet Seeds Limted2s; H.N. Shankara Shastry vs Asst Director of Agriculture Karnataka26; Vl\lR seeds Pvt Ltd vs The State of Telangana2T; seeds Pvt Ltd vs The State of Telangana28; Waryam Singh vs Amarnath2el Shalini Shyam Shetty vs Rajendra Shankar Patil3o; Managing dircctor, Kerela Tourism Development Corporation Ltd rs Deepti Singh3r; Eshalla Reubber vs Dass Estate Ltd32; 2nDecid,rd by LEARNED NCDRC Delhi 06.05.2015 in R.P No. 2742 otl}t4 batch :tzozr 1r; cen glcl ao :62004 SICC online SC 648 2'WP oo. 40269 of 2Ol7 dex:rdd, on 12.12.2O17 '8WP no. 14356 of20l7 decitted on 11.10.2017 T1954 sCC online SC 13 Itzoroy s scc 329 rr20l9 0 Supreme (SC) 408 '=2001 SCC online SC 1097

21512026, 4:50 PM

ctp _ll7 5 ]O25.docx - crp_l I 75_2025.pdf htps://csis.shc. gov.inltrcorderV2 025 lcryl ap_ll7 5 _2025.pd KI., CRP No.l175 of 425 & Batch vs Prakesh Chad Goel Rasi Seeds hrt.Ltd vs

33. , Bhagwan34 : :,,

27. Case ICws cited by the Respondents: :r

i) The respondents have placed strong reliance upon a series of binding and p- ersuasive precedents

ii) In Alaialapati Chandra Reddy (supra), the Supreme Court held that a farmrcr purchasing seeds for cultivation and not for resale is a 'tonsumet'' under the Consumer Protection Act, 19E6. It was ,] clarified that sale of the agricultural produce does not amount to a .., commercial purpose and that the scale of cultivation or volume of sale is immaterial. The decisive test is whether the dominant intention is livelihood and sustenance, a principle squarely applicable to farmers alleging cqop loss due to defective seeds.

iii) In Nandan Biomatrix Ltd. (supra), the National Commission:held that supply of defective or misbranded seeds tt2o2z4 scc r8l 3a Revision Petition No. 4598 of 20 l0

ctp_1175 2025.docx - crp_ll7!: 2025.pdf hups://csi s.tshc. gov.in/hcorde rsl 2025 I crpl crp _ll'l 5 _2025.pdl KL, J CRP No.l 175 of2025 & Batctr constitutes "deficiency in service" under Section 2(l)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Commission observed that once germination failure or poor yield is established through official inspe:tion or scientific analysis, the burden shifts to the manufacturer to disprove defect, and,tiabilify cannot be avoided by attributing loss to climatic or pest-related factors. This principle squarely applies where farmers produce DNA and field inspection reports indicating genetic variation in the seeds supplied.

iv) tn M. Madhusudhan Reddy (supra), the Supreme Court authoritatively held that supply of defective or substandard seeds resulti;rg in crop loss constitutes "deficiency in service" under the Consuner Protection Act. The Court recognised farmers purchasing seeds lbr self-cultivation as "consumers" and held seed rnanulacturers statuto,ily responsible for maintaining prescribed standards of germination and genetic purity. Liability was held to arise once official testing reveals deviation from such standards, forming a foundat ional precedent in agriculttrral consumer jurisprudence.

21512026,4:50 PV

ctp _ll7 5 2025.docx - up _1175 ]025,pdf htrps://csis.tslrc.gov.inlhconde rc12025 / crpl crp _ll7 5 ]O25.pc -kut

, v) In Fortune Hybrid Seeds Ltd. (supra), learned NCDRC ,l held that once d€fectivei hybrid :seeds or deviation in varietal characteristics is established through oflicial inspection or laboratory anallNsis, tiability under the Act follows, and pleas of adverse weather or pest attack cannot exonerate the manufacturer. The Commission further observed that gwernment testing procedures are presumed valid unless disproved by credible expert evidence and that misleading labelling and non-compliance with mandatory standards constihrte both deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, warranting compensation for crop loss and mental agony.

vi) In Nampelly Sudhakar (supra), the Supreme Court dismissed petitions filed by a seed manufacturer arising from identical findings of deficiency by the consumer fora and directed payment of compensation to farmers. Though the Court left the question of law open, the dismissal signified affirmation of concurrent factual findings against the manufacturer and lends persuasive weight to the conclusion that such deficiencies warrant consumer redress.

215/2026,4:50 PM

crp _ll7 5 2025.docx - crp_l 175 _2025.pdf

vii) In Ghaziabad Development 'Authority (supra), the Supn:me Court held that "deficienry in'service?'under the Consumer ,., Prote,;tion Act encompasses failure to perform, statutory or contractual obligations within a reasonable time, rnrcluding administative delay l and arbitrary conduct causing harassmerrt. Emphasising the welfare natur€, of the legislation, the Court affirmed thre power of consumer fora to award compensation not only for monetary loss but also for mental agony and inconvenience, guiding a broad and remedial interpretation of consumer rights.

viii) In Neelam Gupta (supra), the Supreme Court emphasised that jurlicial interference must be exercised with circumspection where concurrent findings subsist. The Court held that interim protections such as maintenance of status quo are warranted to preserve the subject-matter pending final adjudication and to prevent prejudice arising from multiplicity of proceedings. The decision reinforces the princip.le that authorities must act within jurisdiction and respect subsisting orders of competent fora. hrps://csis.tshc.gov.in/hcondercl2025 / crpl crp_l I 75-2025.pdt KL, J CRP No.l 175 of2025 & Barch

21512026,4:50 Plv

ctp_1175_2025.docx - crp_l I 75 2025.pdf

ix) In Alavalapati Chandra Reddy (supra), the Supreme Court held that while agiculture is a livelihood activity, a complainant must establish a clear nerals between defective segds and crop loss. The Court observed that climatic conditions, soil quality, and agronomic practices arerrelevant factors, and that crop failure alone does not automaticalty establish deficiency in service. The judgment strikes a balance between safeguarding farmen and protecting manufacturers from speculative claims absent scientific proof.

x) In Shrihari Limrai Karanikar (supra), the National Commission held that th€ initial burden lies on the complainant to establish prima facie deficiency. It was observed that field inspections conducted without notice to the manufacfurer and without laboratory testing under Section l3(lXc) of the Act are insufficient to fasten liability. The Commission recognised that agricultural loss may arise from external factors, and unless these are excluded by cogent evidence, defioiency cannot be presumed against the seed supplier. https://csis.shc.gov.in/hcorderV20Zl I crpl crp _117 5 ]O25.p< KL, J

ctp_ll7 5 2025.docx - crp_l l7!' 2025.pdf hups://csis.shc.gov.in/hcorderV2O25l crpl crp _l I 75 2025.pd1

KI. J CRP No.l 175 of2025 & Batch

xi) In H. N. Shastry (supra), the Karnataka High Court held that administrative or preliminary reports prepared without sfricJ adherence to the sampling and testing procedures prescribed under the Seeds Rules, 1968 cannot form the basis for penal or regulatory actic,n. The Court emphasised that where statutory provisions mandate testing through notified laboratories, any non-compliance vitiates thre entire action. This principle underscores that findings of misbranding or dr;ficiency cannot be sustained without compliance with mandatory proc,tdural safeguards

xii) In VNR Seeds (supra), in W.P. No. 40269 of 2017, the High Court set aside the cancellation of a seed dealer's licence on the ground that the facts and issues were identical to those decided earlier in \['.P. No. 14356 of 2017 and batch. The Court held that once a coorrlinate Bench has declared the procedure adopted by the licensing authority to be contrary to the Seeds Rules and the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983, adrninistrative consistency rnandates that similar cases be dr:cided on the same reasoning. The writ petition was accordingly

215/2026,4:50 PM

ctp_1175 Jm25.docx - crp_1175 2025.pdf allowed and the licence restored,'underscoring the principle of . ,' ,:..., t' " uniformity in adminisfrative adjudication: ' ,

xiii) In \ [R Seeds (supra), W.P.,No. 14356 of 2017 and batch, the High Court held that cancellation of licences of seed distributors without compliance with'Rule 23-A of the Seeds Rules, and without recording specific ,findings of statutory violation, is unsustainable in law. The Cou{ emphasised that authorities must clearly distinguish between the roles'of manufacturers and distributors and cannot impose col[ective liabitity absent proof of mens rea or procedural compliance. The writ petitions were allowed, licences restored, and the authorities caufoned to sfiictly adhere to the prescribed inspection and testing procedures in future actions. Analvsis and Findings of the Court:-

28. It is apt to note ttrat both trearned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for pspondents on instructions, submitted that 427 Farmers filed complaints under Section 12 of the Act, [986 against the petitioners before the District Consumer Forum, l@s://csis.shc.gov.in/hcorde rsl 2025 I crplcrp _l 17 5 _2O25.pd RLJ

7t 7l of99 21512026,4:50 PM

crp_ll7 5 2025.docx - crp_l 175 2025.fif htps://csis.tshc.gov.in/hcordersl2025 I cryl crp _ll7 5 2025.pd. ,KI4'

'Warangal, out of which, the District Consumer Forum allowed 419 :ssmtrlaints in part and dismissed 08 complaints for default.

29. Petitioners herein preferred 419 appeals before the State Comrnission and State Commission allowed 138 appeals in toto and 274 appeals in part. 07 appeals were dismissed for default. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the restoration applications filed in the said 07 appeals to restore the appeals to its original positirn are pending in State Commission.

30. It is further submitted that 466 revisions were filed before learne,l NCDRC by the Manufacturer, dealer and Farmers challenging the said orders passed by the State Commission. learned NCDRC has dispos,:d of the said 466 revisions vide common order dated 06.01.:.t025. -l l. Challenging the said common order, petitioners herein and nlanufacturers filed the present 466 revisions. Out of them, CRP No.2940 of 2025 was dismissed by this Court on 25.09.2025 as withdra.wn.

crp _ll7 5 2{25.docx - crp _1175 }O21Sf hqa://csis.tshc.gov.inrtcordersl2025/ crp/ crp _ll7 5 2025.p< KIt J CRP No.l 175 of2025 & Batch

32. There is no dispute that respondqrts - Farmers purchased that there was crop failure.

33. It is the specific contention of the I't respondents - farmers that the petitioners have supplied defective, mis-branded,,genetically poor chilli seeds. Thus, there is defect in manufacturing of the said seeds and there is deficiency in senrice. Accordiqg to them, petitioners made them to believe that the seeds are geneticalty pure, high performing and superior quality hybrid. The said seeds are genetically stable. But the petitioners have supplied defective, mis-branded, genetically poor chilli seeds contrary to the assurance given by them.

34. Whereas, according to the petitioners, they have supplied genetically pure seeds and farmers did not irrigate properly, they did not use pesticides as recommended by them, there was Thrips infestation which is nothing to do with the genetic makeup of the seed, temperature was very high and there are adverse weather conditions in the subject area.

215t2026,4:50 PM

cry _1L75 2025.docx - crp_l 175 2025.pdf https://csis.tshc.gov.in/hcordersl}0Z1 / crf, crp _ll7 5 2025.fi1 KL, J CRP No.t 175 of 2025 & Batch -l

35. It is apt to note that the respondents - farmers examined 04 witlesses i.e. P.Ws.l to P.W.4 and filed EXs.A.l to A.12 (the number of exhibits marked by the complainants differ from case to case).

36. Whereas, petitioners herein examined 02 witnesses i-e. R.Wl, and R.W.2, filed Exs.B.l to B.16. Learned District Consumer Forum marked Exs.X.1 to X.19 through P.Ws.3 and 4.

37. P.W.l is Farmer Complainant, P.W.2 is Assistant Director, Agriculture, Hyderabad, P.Ws.3 and 4 are District Agrictrlture Officers. .38. It is also not in dispute that there was complaint against the petitiorrers, manufacturers by the huge number of farmers belong to several villages of Atmakur Mandal of Warangal District, alleging that petitioners supplied defective chilli seeds due to which there was crop flilure and they sustained huge loss. They have written a letter/complaint to the District Collector, Warangal, with a request to do justice who in turn, informed the same to the Agricutture Offtcer,

4512026,4:50 PM

qp_l 175_2025.docx - c*p-l 175 2025.pdf

KL.,i CRPNo.l175of2025 &Bat h Joint Director of Agriculture, Warangal, District Horticulttre and Sericulture Officen.

39. The District Agriculture Officer, Warnagal, vid€ his letter dated 07.07.2017 directed the Mandal Agriculture Officer to conduct joint inspection with Horticulture Officer and report complianco at the earliest. In compliance with the same, vide letter dated lO.O7.2Ol7, Mandal Agriculture OfIicer, informed the Assistant Director of Agricultgre, Telangana, DNA Fingerprinting crops, monitoring Lab that he is sending green chillies leaves of 50 plants (randomly selected) for analysis. The Joint District Level Committee conducted a visual inspection on I I .07.2017 andsubsequently submiated its report stating that the crop had been severely affected by Thrips incidents, during initial crop growing stage, attributed to the prevalence of high temperatures. The crop was affected by virat diseases such as Peanut Bud Necrosis Virus (PBNV) and Cucumber Mosaic Virus (CMV) which led to poor growth. htQs://csis.tshc.gov.in/hcordersl2025 luplcrp-ll7 5 2O25.pdt ctp_1175 2025.docx - crp_ll7ii 2o25.pdf hups ://csis.shc. gov. in/hcord ers/ 2O25 I crpl ctp _ll7 5 ]025.pd

KL,I CRP No.l 175 of2025 & Batch , 40. On 01.08.2017, the genetic purity test report was submitted to thr: District Agncutture Offrcer, Warangal, and the Commissioner of A,griculture, fs[angana, who in turn drawn conclusion that the genetic purity test rwealed that field sample differs from the standard profile , then rendered the sample as 'mis-branded'. 4l.It is also apt to note that petitioners herein, manufacturers of subjec;t chilli seeds and dealers filed counters before the District Consumer Forum.

42. \t is also apt to note that Farmers - Complainants examined themselves as P.W.1 and they specif,rcally deposed that petitioners and their dealers came to their villages, gave wide publicity in respect of VNR 145 chilli seds, assured them and the other farmers of the villages with regard to the quality of the said seed. They have also assuredl that there would be 100 to 150 qunitals per acre of yield of green r:hillies. They have also brought photographs, posters and pamphlets of their company seed grown elsewhere. They have assured that the said chilli seeds are having resistance to jassids (leaf hoppers) r' -- ..(^l ctp _ll7 5 !&t25.docx - ap -ll7 5 ]O2l.pdf lrt$s://csis.shc.gov.in/hcorderV2 025 lupl crp -ll7 5 2025.pd KI. J CRP No.l 175 of2025 & Bat fi : inherently, heavy heat and cool withstand against rain aRO othe,r tl diseases. Thus, the petitioners made the farmers including':the , . ,. . - " ;' ,. ' , ' complainants herein to believe the aforesaid aspects and on the said ,' belief, they have purchased VNR 145 chilli seeds.

43. They have also specifically deposed with regard to details of purchase, cultivation, apply of fertilizer, pesticides, as advised by the petitioners and also about loss of crop including germination and sustenance of loss. [n proof of the same, they have filed cash bills, pattadar passbooks, show cause notice, representation submiffed to the District Collector etc.

44. Petitioners cross-examined the complainants at length but nothing useful was elicited from them during cross-examination.

45. It is also apt to note that the complainants examined Assistant Director, Agriculture, Hyderabad, who is also DNA Fingerprint expert as P.W.2, District Agriculture Officers as P.Ws.3 and 4. The District Consumer Forum, marked corresponderrce between them and also reports submitted by them.

A5D026,4:50 PM

crp _1175 2025.docx - crp_l 175 2025.pdf https://csis.strc.gov:in/hcorde rs12025 I cryl crp _ll7 5 2025.pd

I: KL, J CRP No.l 175 of2025 & Batch

46. P.Ws.2 to 4 were cross-examined by the petitioners and r:' '' i ',t ' nothing usetul was eligitg!,fiom them. ,:

47. It is also ,apt ,:,. to note that P.W.2 Assistant Director of Agriculture, wtro ,is. also Fingerprint Expert, specifically deposed about collection of samples including collection of 50 leave samples from Akkampet village, standard hybrid and parental line samples from thq petitioners. She has extracted DNA from each leave using ISSR markers:809, 823 and 886, the molecular profiles were compered with the standard hybrid type sample provided by the petitioners, the laboratory report i.e. Ex.X.6, dated 01.08.2017 and declarr:d the field sample his-branded' as its molecular profile did not match the standard parental [ine. She also gave a clarification with regard to examination of lot No.l870 only as it represented the comm()n parental line supplied to alt dealers and therefore, the test results would uniformty apply to all farmers.

2t5/2026,4:50 PM

crp _ll7 5 2025.docx - crp _1175 _2025pdf htrpsr//csis.tshc.gov.in/lrcordeN&2Slcryl crp _ll7 5 2025.pd Kr.T - CRP No.l 175 of2025 & Barch 48.,,She further that she .l€q}€sted the c-ol-npany to furnibh gel prints or marker details and petitioners did not _-:..... fumish the same.

49. Howev-er, during cross-examination she has admitted that the'gel'prints will be supplied and that she has not received the gel prints. Ttre District Agriculture Officer, will give license to manufaclq{p-g companies to sell the seeds in market world, for the purpose of manufacturing the seeds, the commissioner of Agricutture will accord permission to the seeds companies. After determining the S9n9!c purity and SSR markers and gel prints, the license will be given for the pu.ryose of manufacturing seeds. The centre license is meant for both for manufacturing and for sales. The gel prints wilt be given to only commissioner of Agriculture.

50. Thus, nothing useful was elicited from her during cross- examination.

51. As discussed supra, petitioners hetein examined Sri P.Srinivasa Swamy, Zotal Manager as R.W.l and Mr. Paraq Agarwal,

-1'

crp -ll7 5 2}25.docx - crp-l I 75- 2025.pdf hups://csis.shc.gov.in/hcordersl2025l crpl ctp

1 75 2025.pd1 KL, J CRP No.l 175 of2025 & Batch Breerler as R.W.2, who dgposed ,that ,the seeds supplied by the petitioners are genetically pUIq, high qualit-y hybrids and there is no genel:ic defect in the said chilli seeds pllrdhased by the farmen - complainants. There is no deficiency of service on their part.

52. lt is also apt to note that in some complaints, petitioners exanLined the dealer as R.W.3.

53. On consideration of the said evidence both oral and documentary, vide order dated 30.01.2020, learned District Consumer Forum, allowed the said complaints in part, holding that the seeds supptied by the petitioners are 'mis-branded', geneticatly poor and there is def,rciency in service. Leamed District Forum also considered Field Inspection Report, Disfiict Level Report, and DNA Fingerprint Labc,ratory Report. Leamed District Forum also considered the bills frled by the complainants, pattadar passbooks etc, for the purpose of comllutation of loss. Ultimately, learned District Forum held that both the nranufacture and dealer are joinfly and severely liable and directed them to pay an amount of Rs.1,35,000/- towards crop loss per acre

2/512026,4:50 PM

crp-1175 2025.docx - crp-1175 2025.pdf

55. Petitioners herein preferred appeals before the state Commission challenging the said orders passed by the District Forum' The State Commission allowed some appeals filed by the petitioners : on ttre ground tnat trc complainants did not f,rle evidence such as bills in proof of the pgrchaSe of the seeds, ownership of the cultivated land, details of family members, use of pesticides and proof of crop loss' hQs://csis.tshc.gov.ir/hcorde rs/2025 /crpkrp -l 17 5

-pd: KI.,

,,: atogg with'/;So/p tntprest per annum from the date of filing of the ' ,, ., ,. ..,"':.,:',,

.:l , . ' j.. . .i:. .:.1 .': " .' complaint iri,;.-tii;a6:2018 till date of realization of the same. Learned ,.,,,',, .. t . :i.-:: .' Distict Forum,,ilS'O. dii-ected the petitioners and dealer to pay an ' :' ': ' ":l ' ,: amount ,ofl. RS,35,000/- per acre to the complainants towards ._..:.''' ,. 1.... expenditure inctrrreA by them inctuding costs of seeds, Rs-10,000/- ' :",- . towards metnA1.a9,.o1y: legal expenses including costs within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the said order- ,.:

54. As discgssed supra, learned District Forum, answered all the three points in'favour of the complainants. District Forum gave ,, : specific r€asory+g on alt the aforesaid three issues including . ,,:, computation. " ' 8l of99 21512026,4:50 PIv

ctp_ll7 5 2025.docx - crp_l l7!: 2025.pdf hups://csis.shc.gov.io/hcordes/20251cry1 cry _ll7 5 2025 qc a^\ KI".t CRP No.l lT5 of2025 & Barch However, the state commission allowed soB.g 4ppears in part and redur:ed interest on the ground that complainants have not filed proper docurnents and without considering the said aspects, District Forum allowed complaints in part and directed the'petitioners to pay the

56. It is also apt to note that in some appeals which were allow,:d, State commission considered the fact that farmers failed to file bills for purchase of the seeds, land documents, date of purchase and sowing and transplantation of the seedlings. District Forum passecl impugned orders in an uniform manner mechanically without exami;ring the aforesaid relevant documents with the said findings, learnerl State commission allowed some appeals filed by the petitio:rers in toto. :i7 - whereas, leamed NCDRC considered appointment of committee, drawing of samples by the committee, sending the same for examination in the labs and submissionofreport. learned NCDRC also cc,nsidered the depositions of p.ws.l to 4 more particularly,

2/512026,4:50 PM

crp _ll7 5 ]A25.docx - crp _l 17 5 ]025.pdf Seed using r\rNR chillies learned weather and other documents exhibited.through P.ws.3 and 4 before the DistrictForum. , , : ,,,,

58. It is apt to notc that in the said Joint [nspection report, it ,,. was reported as follows:- htQs://csis.tslrc gov.inlhcorde rs/X25 I crptcrp _ll7 5 J02S.V. KI.J- - CRP No. I 175 of2025 & Adch P.W.2 Assistant Direbtor iof . t. .. . DNA Fingerprint Expert, t. j Crop is at the stage of flowering to fiuiting stage having upward : curling with low floweriug and fruiting, Plants not shows uniformity, some plants at the stage of pre- flowering, some plants at the stage of flowering to fruiting stage and some plants severely affacked by viral disease. ll.

2/512026,4:50 PM

crp_1175 2025.docx - crp-l 175-2025-pdf htps://csis.shc. gov.in/hcorde rsl 2025 I ctpl crp -ll7 5 2025'pdl

//: ! KI; ' CRP No.l 175 of2025 & Batch Offrcer, Warangal Urban and Rurat District, ,AssiStana . Director,

Agriculture, Horticulture Officer, visited fields and submiAed report.

60. It is also not in dispute that on the recommendations of the : ,, ,l , Committee, a genetic purity test was also condtrcted after collecting .., j.:.1 r treave,s from the frelds and VNIR 145 hybrid stpdard qpe sample subrnitted by the seed company. A genetic purity test wa-s conducted in Tr:langana DNA Fingerprinting and Transgenic Cfqp monitoring lab, Hyderabad. The said genetic purity test revealed that as per the field sample, molecular profile is different froq the standard molecular profile, the sample is declared as 'mis-branded'. The said report was also marked as Exhibit. Petitioners herein failed to falsiff the sraid report <turing cross-examination or by producing any other contra evidence.

2t5/2026,4:50 PM

crp_L175 2025.docx - crp_l 17 5 2025.pdf , ,, ,,,,,]

61. Learned NCDRC considbred'the said aspects and disposed ,. :,, . ;......:.... of the revisions filedrby the petitioners vide impugued comnon order. ,, , ..'' ". ,, ', ,. .

62. Tlte sum and substance of contgntions of the petitioners are as follows:- Burden lies on the complainants - farmers to prove that the seeds are defective. KI., CRP lb.l 175 of2025 & Bdch Genetic purity cannot be established through visual site The alleged visual inspection by the Committee was not independent and it was behind the back of the petitioners. ln-house lab report of the petitionen will prevail over the site inspection report. Procedural lapses on the part of the complainants. Proceedings, issued by the Deparfinent cancelling the manufacturing license was set aside by the High Court. hcps://csis.tshc.gov.inlhcordes/2O25 / upl crp _ll7 5 -p25.pd inspection. ul. The complainants -farmers have to show nexus between defect ll. lv. vl. vrt.

ctp_ll7s 2025.docx - crp_l175. 2025.pdf htps://csis.tshc.gov.in/hcorderV2025 lcrplcrp _ll7 5 2025 pdt KL,J

I vltl. There was Thrips infestation which cannot be auributed to'thc genetic purity of the seeds and farmers did not take necessary' ,-

63. In the light of the said submission, it is apt to note tha! thre dispule concerning alleged defective seeds, the complainants must ultimately estabtish i) the seeds supplied have suffered from defects/substandard quality in a manner materialty affecting the perfbrmance. ii) and such defect bore a proximity nexus with the loss of crop on the consequential damages claimed

64. There is no dispute that there was crop failure and such crop failure by itself does not automaticatly lead to an inference of defective seed. Nonetheless, where the material on record demonstrate genetic: deviation ' mis-branded' coupled with consistent field level failure traceable to the supplied variety, the above nexus requirement stands :;atisfied. (;5. A conjoint reading of the Seeds Act, 1966 and the Seeds Rules, 1968 makes it clear that the authority to test and certiff the

215/2026,4:50 PM

ctp _ll7 5 _m25.docx - crp_l I 75 2025.pdf . cRPNo.,*irrrr*uo* : .'',:...,..1.. . , ; .lr' ,..,t,,:, :'''-

i. - ' quality, purity and gen€tic charact titb,,,,'of seeds :is 'vested . : I , ,.."r,.. . .... exclusively in the Central Seed Laboratoly.oi:'-qtate Seedr Laboratory ' :' ' '"" t '-ti notified under Section 4 of, the. A9!;,,and,",suCh testing can be .ltt '. ''.',' ' undertaken only by duly quatified: Seedi.Analysts appointed in accordance with the Act and Rules, Sections 14.tb i6 of the Act, read with Rules 20 to 33 of the Seeds Rules,.prescribe a mandatory procedure for sampling, sealing, dispatch and scientific analpis, and confer statutory f,rnality on reports issued, by such notified laboratories. The Act does not recognize D-I{A or genetic testing conducted by non-notified laboratories or by offcers not qualified as ,... Seed Analysts. Consequently, any DNA or.gen€1ic purity test relied upon for regulatory or adjudicatory purposes m-ust strictly conform to the statutory framework, failing which such reports lack legal sanctity and cannot form the basis for a finding of misbranding, genetic impurity or deficiencY in sewice.

66. lt is also significant to note that Prffs. 2 to 4 are independent and official witnesses, being officers of the'State discharging statutory hqs://csis.blrc.gov.in/hcorders/2025/crp/crp-l 1 75-2025.pdt

21512026,4:50 PIt

ctp_1175 2025.docx - crp_I17:i 2025.pdf https://csis.shc.gov.in/trcorde rc120251 ctpl erp _lL7 5 2025.pt

KI.I CRP No.l 175 of2025 & Barch ne{her afleged nor established any bias or animus on their part in , ,, f4vprrr of the comrplainants, and no suggestion to that effect was even put trr,these ldtnesses during c ros s -exami nation. , 67. section 13 of the Acr, 1986 deals with procedure on admission of complaint. Section l3(l) (c) of the Act, 19g6 says that :.' therEristrict Forum shall on admission of complaint if it relates to any goo4s where the complaint alleges in defect in the goods which caourlt be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, Distn,ct Forum shall obtain sample of the goods from the complainant, obtain report etc. [n the present case, District Forum placed relianoe on thr: Field Inspection Report and DNA Fingerprinting report etc. on consirleration of the same, District Forum, gave a specific finding that the seeds supplied by the petitioners are of mis-branded, defective and thcre is deficiency of service. r-\

4512026,4:50 PM

ep_1175 2025.docx - crp_1175 2025.pdf htqa://cs,is.tstrc.gov.in/hcorderV2o25 / crpl crp _ll7 5 2025.fi .

initial burden. Therefore, petitioners cannot contel t.thet ,, ,,., ' r, ,:,, , complainants failed to discharge their burden. Thus;'6-nce : :. , KI" J CRP No.l 175 of2025 & Bal6 ..., . --..:.

68. It is also apt to note that by fillilg the aforesaiddocuments l: , ..: , , ,,. " t ' .:t'''"'','' ::':' and by examining P.Ws.l to 4, the complainants diso@ed, thpir ,'thb 'the . ,: .., .,,.:-. .. I complainants have discharged their initial burden, the burden shifts on the petitioners to prove that they have supplied the goods property without any defect and there is no deficiency in service'by rebutting prima facie evidence as held by the Supreme , Court in M.Madhusudhan Reddy (supra). They have to lead reliable contra evidence. [n the present case, petitioners utterly failed to do,so.

69. As discussed supra, petitioners entered appearagce before the District Forum and filed their counters. They have cross-examined the complainants' witnesses and also filed documents. They have not pleaded the aforesaid aspects in the counters. They have raised severat grounds for the first time before the State Commission, learned NCDRC and this Court which they have not raised Uefore tne District., Forum. ' .'

ctp_ll7s 2025.docx - crp_l175- 2025.pdf htps://csis.shc. gov.in/hcordersl 2O25 / crplup _ll7 5 ]025 &

KL, J CRP No.l 175 of2025 & Batclt

70. It is rite law that the petitioners herein have to plead and prove by producing reliable evidence to show that they have supplied genet.cally pure seeds and that there was no deficiency in service. They have to disprove the allegations, contentions of the complainants

- farrners that the petitioners supplied defective seed and there is deficir:ncy in service. In the present case, petitioners herein failed to plead and prove the same.

71. With regard to the contentions of the petitioners that this Court in a batch of writ petitions set aside the proceedings issued by the dgriculture Deparbnent cancelling the manuflacturing license issued in favour of the petitioners. However, perusa[ of the said orders would releal that this Court set aside the cancellation proceedings pointing out procedural irregularities. The said orders will not have any be'aring on the present proceedings. The said order will not preclude the complainant's remedies under the Act, 1986.

12. Itis also relevant to note that complainants filed bills, proof of land owned by them etc. Even then, petitioners failed to dispute the ,/' -t

21512026,4:fl) PM

crp_l 175_2025.docx - crp _ll7 5 _?f,25 Adf Irttps://csis.slrc.gov.ir/trcordersl2025 I af, crp _Ll7 5 ]025.pd KI. J CRP No.l 175 of2025 & Bald

' ,r same and did not eticit anything from P.W.l (complainan8). They ' have not examined the dealer to disprove the said bills and in fact, the : , saidhills are certified by the dealer.

73. It is also apt to note that as per Rule 38 of the Seeds Rules, 1968, a person carrying on a business of seeds shall maintain record i.e. stock record of seeds, record of sale of seeds. Rule 2(g) deals with definition of complete record and it says the information which relates to the origin, variety, kind, germination and purity of seed of any l notified kind or variety offered for sale, sold or otherwise supplied. Rule 13 of the Rules, deals with requirements to be complied with by a person carrying on the business of seeds. In the present case, the petitioners failed to produce the same to disprove the bills submitted by the complainants and also to disprove the claim of the complainants.

74. It is also apt to note that petitioners did not file any objections to the aforesaid reports 9l of99

crp_1175 2025.docx - crp_1175. 2025.pdf htps://csis.tshc.gov.in/hcord ers/2025 I crpl crp _ll7 5 2025 pd

KL, J CRP No.l 175 of2025 & Batch

75. Petitioners have to maintain certain statutory forms in terms of Seods Rules. Theyhave not produced the said forms.

76. Petitioners did not take any steps before the District Forum to send the samples to lab for conducting genetic purity test in terms of Sec:tion 13 of the Act, 1986. Therefore, they cannot contend that all the necessary markers were not considered in the DNA Fingerprinting report

77. It is also apt to note that State Commission allowed some appeals frled by the petitioners on the ground that the complainants failed to file bitls, proper documents regarding purchase of seeds, crop loss etr:. Complainants - farmers, cannot be expected to preserve the bills under which they purchased the subject chilli seeds. Farmers being common people, cannot be expected to assume or presume there would lre a crop loss. ?'8. This Court has carefully scrutinized the entire record, including the depositions of witnesses, reports of the District-Level Committee, Laboratory findings of the Telangana DNA (..

2/512026,4:50 PM

ctp -ll7 5 ]Oz5.docx - crp-l I 75-2025 pdf https://csis.shc gov.in/hcorde rsl2025 t cryl crp -ll7 5 -2025.fi| KI. J CRP l.Io.l175 of 2025 & Batch

, Fingerpiinti,g , &: Transgenic Crops Monitoring Laboratory ' . '',,:,,,,' , t. , Hy{t bad, official communications between the Department of , Aqiculture and the Manufacturer, and ancillary documentary material such as invoices, weather reports, and market-rate certificates. The , concurrent findings of the District Forum, State Commission, and National Commission rest upon this comprehensive body of evidence. ' |g.It is welt settled that the 'Complainants-farmers' fall within the definition of 'tonsumef' under Section 2(1Xd) of the Act, 1986, and the objection raised by the petitioners on the $ound of "commerCial cultivation" is untenable. The Supreme Court in M. Madhusudhan Reddy (supra) authoritatively held that farmers who purchase seeds for cultivating their own land, remain consumers, even if the agricultural produce is sold, such activity is essentially for livelihood and sustenance and not a commercial enterprise. This principle was reiterated in Alavalapati Chandra Reddy (supra), wherein thr Court applied the 'dominant purpose test' and clarified that the scale of cultivation or volume of sale is immaterial so long as

21512026,4:50 PV

cry _ll7 5 2025.docx - crp_l I 75 _2025.pdf htps://csis.shc.gov.in/trcorde rs/2025 / crp/ crp _ll7 5 2025.p<

KL, J CRP No.l 175 of2025 & Barcb fora below, and the proceedings rmder the Act, 1986 are clearly .. mairrtainable, warranting no interference on this ground.

80. [t is also well settl;o uw that the suppry of defecrive or sub- stan<lard seeds resulting in crop loss constitutes "deficiency in service" within the meaning of section 2(rXg) of the Act, 19g6. The Supreme court in M. Madhusudhan Reddy (supra) held that seed manrrfacturers owe a statutw and contracfual duty to maintain presr:ribed standards of quality, germination and genetic purity, and any ceviation therefrom, once established through official inspection or scientific material, attracts liabitity under consumer law. The NCI)RC in Nandan Biomatrix Ltd.(supra) and Fortune Hybrid seeds Ltd.(supra) furttrer clarified that where prima facie defect or misbranding is demonstrated, the manufacturer cannot evade responsibility by attributing crop faiture to climatic or pest-related factc,rs. In the present case, the concurrent findings of the consumer

2/5/2026,4:50 PM the primary object is eamiqg livelihood. In the light of these binding . il. prec,rdents, the respondenls were,rightty treated as consumers by the ctp_1175 2025.docx - crp_l 175_2$25.pdf I .:: .. .. ,'.,,,,,, fora, based on eipert reports and official inspections, clearly establish 'deficiency in'.servicel'ron the part of the petitioners, and the said conclusion is;,rn'.4bsolUte consonance with the settled jurisprudence govermrlg:.feed qelaGd consumer disputes.

81. :The:Act, '1986 is a beneficial and remedial legislation enacted With the odect of providing speedy, inexpensive and effective redressal to consumers, and prolonged litigation runs directly contrary to its legislati4' ihtent, The Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Developnient Authority (supra) underscored that consumer fora must discourage tactics, which'delay relief and cause conti nued harassment to consumers,,partidularly those who are economically vulnerable. In the context of agricultural disputes, where farmers depend on a single crop cycle for their livelihood, repeated and successive challenges to conqurent findings only serve to defeat the very purpose of the Act. In the present case, the dispute relates to the agricultural season of 20t7, and the respndents have been compelled to litigate for several years across multiple fora. Such protraction of proceedings, in the htps://csis.strc. gov.iry'hcorde rsl2025 lcrpkrp -ll7 5 2025.pd KI., CRP No.l 175 of2025 & Barcli

215/2{26,4:50 PM

crp _ll7 5 2025.docx - crp_l I 75_ 2025.pdf hups://csis.shc. gov.in/hcorde sl2025 I crpl crp _ll7 5 _2025.pd, t' KL, J CRP No.l 175 of2025 & Batch absence of any demonstrated jurisdictional error, is antithetical to the objecr:of the Act, 1986 and cannotbe countenanced.

82. The scope of interference under Anicle 227 of the Constitution of India, is supervisory and not appellate, and it does not permi; re-appreciation of evidence or substifution of factual concltrsions reached by competent fora, It is a settled principle that where concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by the tribunals below after due consideration of the material on record, such findings do no,: warrant interference unless they are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or vitiated by jurisdictionat error. The Supreme Court in Jai Singh (supra) and this Court in Neelam Gupta (supra) have t:mphasized that supervisory jurisdiction is to be exercised sparinllly and with circumspection. In the present case, the District Forum and learned NCDRC gave coffiistent findings of deficiency in service founded on scientific and documentary evidence, and no pervers.ity or patent illegality has been demonstrated. .Interference under r\rticle 227 ofthe Constitution of India, in such circumstances

2/512026,4:50 PM

ctp_1175 2025.docx - crp-l175 2025.pdf htps://csis.strc.govio/hcorde rsl 2025 I crpl crp -Ll7 5 -2025.&l

KT. J CRP No.l 175 of2025 & Balch would amount to converting the supervisory jurisdiction into an appellate forum, which is impermissible in taw.

83. It is relevant to note that on consideration of the aforesaid aspects, learned Disfiict Fo4rm allorred the complaints filed by the farmers and . awarded compensation. Learned State Commission allowed some appeals filed by the petitioners, set aside the orders passed by the Distict !o1um on the ground that the complainants failed to fite bitts etc. The said findings of the State Commission are erroneous and conffary to the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgments. However, learned NCDRC considered the said aspects and disposed of the revisions filed by the petitioners herein and complainants vide courmon ordor dated 06.01 .2025. It is a reasoned order and well founded. Petitioners herein failed to make out any case to interfere with the said order.

84. As discussed supra, there are concurrent frndings by the learned District,Forum and learned NCDRC with regard to supply of mis-branded defective seeds and there is deficiency in service

2/5/2026,4:50 PM

crp_1175 2025.docx - crp_l I 7i;_2025.pdf htps://csis.tshc.gov.in/hcordersl2025 lcrpl crp _ll7 5 2025.p<

stat(, commission ered in setting aside some of the'orders passed by- ,,,,.........,,....... the District Forum and reducing the compensation,awarded by the ' tl ' :" ' District Forum in complaints. The said findings are contBry to the :...-

: object of the Act, 1986, procedure laid down under'Seeds Act and Ruk;s, and also principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments.

85. It is also apt to note that learned counsel'for,the petitioners on instructions, submitted that the tiability of the petitio.aers to comply ..,..., with orders passed by the District Forum would be'aroundr Rs.ll crores and learned NCDRC would be Rs.9 crores, in,compliance '.., with the interim orders passed by this court, the petitioners have lainants in alt the. complaints are .,, -,.. . , consumers and the complaints filed by them before the DiStict Forum undt:r Section 12 of the Acr, 1986 are maintailble.,There is defir:iency of service on the part of the petitioners herein.

215/2026.4:50 PM

crp_1175]?.O25.docx - crp-l 175 2025pdf ,/':-

KI. ' CRP No.t 175 of2025 & Batctr

Conclusion:-

87. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, as discussed supra, the impugned common order dated 06.0L.2025 passed by the learned NCDRC is a reasoned order and well founded. It does not require interflerence by this Court by invokiqg its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Thus the present revisions fai[, they are liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. JUSTICE IC LAKSHMAN 19th Decemberr2025 Note: L.R.copy to be marked. b/o.wr. lrtss://csis.tshc.gov.in/hcorde rs/ 2025 I crp/ crp -ll7 5 2025.pd[