ZIMIDARA AGRO CENTER Vs. SUKHDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant/respondent Sukhdev Singh took 6 acres of agricultural land on lease from one Baljinder Singh. He purchased two packets of Nikki MRC 7017 BG-11 and three packets of Mahyco Bollgard MRC 6304 seeds from Jimidara Agro Center, petitioner in Revision Petition No.2354 of 2016. The grievance of the complainant is that on sowing the aforesaid seeds in 3 acres of land, growth of plants was not proper and yield of the crop was lesser, as compared to the other seeds. The complainant therefore, approached the Agriculture Officer, seeking inspection of his field. It was reported by the Agriculture Officer that germination of the seed was very low and growth of the plants were not equal though PH level of the earth was correct. The complainant approached the concerned District Forum with a consumer complaint, alleging sub-standard quality of the seeds sold to him by Jimidara Agro Center. Since the seeds had been manufactured by Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd., petitioner in Revision Petition No.1917 of 2016 the aforesaid company was also impleaded as the opposite party in the complaint.

(2.) The complaint was resisted by the manufacturer as well as by the dealer. It was denied by the manufacturer that the seeds sold to the complainant were of inferior quality. It was also alleged that less flower growth was due to the factors such as insufficient water, fertilizers, unsuitable land, unfavourable environmental condition, lack of plant protection measures, insufficient nutrients in soil, non-spraying of required insecticides etc. It was also pleaded that the seeds had been duly certified by the quality control laboratory recognized by the Ministry of Science & Technology, Government of India, which had also been accredited by International Seed Testing Association.

(3.) The District Forum having allowed the complaint, the petitioners before this Commission, filed separate appeals before the State Commission, challenging the said orders. Vide impugned order dated 09.2016, the State Commission dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioners. Being aggrieved they are before this Commission by way of these two separate revision petitions.