Divya Enterprises Through Its Manager Panjar Pol Chowk vs Ajit Digambar Mali And Another

2026:BHC-AUG:8158 wp-13914-2025 grp.odt (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 13914 OF 2025 Beejsheetal Research Pvt. Ltd. Formerly Known as Bejo Sheetal Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Bejo Sheetal Corner, Mantha Road, Jalna Through its Authorised person. ..Petitioner

VERSUS 1. Ajit Digambar Mali Age. Major Yrs, Occ. Agri., R/o. Gaur, Tq. Kalam, Dist. Osmanabad. 2. Divya Enterprises, 167, Mohata Towers, Panjar Pol Chowk, Solapur, Tq. and Dist. Solapur through its manger ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 13924 OF 2025 Beejsheetal Research Pvt. Ltd. Formerly Known as Bejo Sheetal Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Bejo Sheetal Corner, Mantha Road, Jalna Through its Authorised person. ..Petitioner

VERSUS 1. Hanumant Dattoba Mali Age. Major Yrs, Occ. Agri., R/o. Gaur, Tq. Kalam, Dist. Osmanabad. 2. Manager, Shaha Agro Company 14A, Mehta Towers, Opp. To Geeta Lodge, Panjar Pol Chowk, Solapur Tq. and Dist. Solapur. ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 13920 OF 2025 Beejsheetal Research Pvt. Ltd. Formerly Known as Bejo Sheetal Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Bejo Sheetal Corner, Mantha Road, Jalna Through its Authorised person. ..Petitioner

VERSUS wp-13914-2025 grp.odt (2)

1. Tatyasaheb Parasram Deshmukh Age. 60 Yrs, Occ. Agri., R/o. Gaur, Tq. Kalam, Dist. Osmanabad. 2. Manager, Shaha Agro Company 14A, Mehta Towers, Opp. To Geeta Lodge, Panjar Pol Chowk, Solapur Tq. and Dist. Solapur. ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 13917 OF 2025 Beejsheetal Research Pvt. Ltd. Formerly Known as Bejo Sheetal Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Bejo Sheetal Corner, Mantha Road, Jalna Through its Authorised person. ..Petitioner

VERSUS 1. Chandrakant Lalasaheb Deshmukh Age. 57 Yrs, Occ. Agri., R/o. Gaur, Tq. Kalam, Dist. Osmanabad. 2. Manager, Shaha Agro Company 14A, Mehta Towers, Opp. To Geeta Lodge, Panjar Pol Chowk, Solapur Tq. and Dist. Solapur. ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 15031 OF 2025 Divya Enterprises, 167, Mohata Towers, Panjar Pol Chowk, Solapur, Tq. and Dist. Solapur through its manger. ..Petitioner

VERSUS

1. Ajit Digambar Mali Age. Major Yrs, Occ. Agri., R/o. Gaur, Tq. Kalam, Dist. Osmanabad. 2. Bejo Sheetal Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Now Known as Bejo Sheetal Research Pvt. Ltd. Bejo Sheetal Corner, Mantha Road, Jalna ..Respondents wp-13914-2025 grp.odt (3)

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 15028 OF 2025 Shah Agro Company Through its Proprietor Rajas Chandragupta Shah, Age: 59 years, Occ: Business, R/o: 14A, Mehta Towers, Opp. To Geeta Lodge, Panjar Pol Chowk, Solapur Tq. & Dist. Solapur. ..Petitioner

VERSUS 1. Tatyasaheb Parasram Deshmukh Age. 60 Yrs, Occ. Agri., R/o. Gaur, Tq. Kalam, Dist. Osmanabad. 2. Bejo Sheetal Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Now Known as Bejo Sheetal Research Pvt. Ltd. Bejo Sheetal Corner, Mantha Road, Jalna ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 15029 OF 2025 Shah Agro Company Through its Proprietor Rajas Chandragupta Shah, Age: 59 years, Occ: Business, R/o: 14A, Mehta Towers, Opp. To Geeta Lodge, Panjar Pol Chowk, Solapur Tq. & Dist. Solapur. ..Petitioner

VERSUS

1. Hanumant Dattoba Mali Age. Major Yrs, Occ. Agri., R/o. Gaur, Tq. Kalam, Dist. Osmanabad.

2. Bejo Sheetal Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Now Known as Bejo Sheetal Research Pvt. Ltd. Bejo Sheetal Corner, Mantha Road, Jalna ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 15030 OF 2025 Shah Agro Company Through its Proprietor Rajas Chandragupta Shah, Age: 59 years, Occ: Business, wp-13914-2025 grp.odt (4)

R/o: 14A, Mehta Towers, Opp. To Geeta Lodge, Panjar Pol Chowk, Solapur Tq. & Dist. Solapur. ..Petitioner

VERSUS

1. Chandrakant Lalasaheb Deshmukh Age. 57 Yrs, Occ. Agri., R/o. Gaur, Tq. Kalam, Dist. Osmanabad.

2. Bejo Sheetal Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Now Known as Bejo Sheetal Research Pvt. Ltd. Bejo Sheetal Corner, Mantha Road, Jalna ..Respondents ... Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. R.B. Bhagwat h/f Mr. G.P. Shinde Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. S.B. Choudhary h/f Mr. U.A. Thaore Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. Shambhuraje V. Deshmukh ... CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

RESERVED ON : JANUARY 07, 2026

PRONOUNCED ON : FEBRUARY 24, 2026

JUDGMENT :

-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally

with consent of parties.

2. Present group of petitions take exception to order dated

16.04.2024 passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'NCDRC'), thereby

setting aside orders passed by Maharashtra State Consumer Redressal

Commission, Mumbai, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad and upholding

order passed by District Consumer Complaint Redressal Forum,

Osmanabad in complaint instituted by respondents/farmers.

wp-13914-2025 grp.odt (5)

3. The facts giving rise to present writ petitions can be

summarized as under :

Respondent no.1 in respective writ petitions are

agriculturists having their lands in District Osmanabad. They grow

onion in their fields. They purchased onion seeds and sown them in

the month of July 2009. Thereafter, transplanted seedling in the field.

They took necessary care for getting season crop. However, at the

time of harvesting, they found that onion developed bolting.

Immediately, they reported the defect to manufacturer and dealer.

They made complaints to District Seeds Grievance Committee. The

Committee visited field and carried out panchnama of onion crops.

They noted that 90% of onion crops developed bolting. The District

Agricultural Development Officer opined that bolting in onion crop is

attributable to defective seeds. The respondents issued notices to

dealer and manufacturer to compensate them for losses. However, no

cognizance was taken by them. In result, respondents approached

District Forum under provisions of Consumer Protection Act raising

claim for compensation towards deficiency in service against

manufacturer and dealer.

4. The respondent/manufacturer filed reply contending that

each packet of seeds contains a brochure in vernacular language

informing the method of cultivation. The germination of seeds and

final product depends upon weather conditions and many other wp-13914-2025 grp.odt (6)

factors. As per information stipulated in brochure, it was necessary to

replant seedlings within 40 to 45 days as period for sowing seed is

fixed. In present case, the complainants have replanted seedlings

after 45 days. The possibility of excessive supply of nitrogen cannot

be ruled out. The delay in re-plantation is fundamental reason for

bolting in onion crop. The report of Agricultural Development Officer

is not scientific or conclusive in nature. The claim for compensation

based on such inconclusive material is unsustainable.

5. The District Forum on consideration of rival contentions

concluded that respondents/farmers suffered loss on account of

defective seeds and granted compensation relying upon report of

Agricultural Officer.

6. The aggrieved dealer as well as manufacturer approached

State Commission by filing appeal under Section 15. The State

Commission allowed the appeal holding that as per government

regulation, the District Seeds Grievance Committee must comprise of

Agricultural Development Officer, Zilla Parishad and other 7

members. In present case, the report is issued by Agricultural Officer.

It is silent about cause of forming bolting in onion. It simply suggest

that bolting occurred due to defective seeds. Such report cannot be

accepted. According to the State Commission, transplantation of seeds

was made after stipulated period, which may be the cause of bolting.

Therefore, in absence of expert evidence attributing formation of wp-13914-2025 grp.odt (7)

bolting owing to defective seeds, the compensation cannot be

granted.

7. The aggrieved farmers/complainants filed revision

applications before NCDRC who pleased to allow revision applications

and restored order of District Forum. Hence, these writ petitions.

8. Mr. R.M. Bhagwat, learned advocate appearing for

petitioners submits that respondents/farmers though attributing

defect in seeds, however, there is no scientific material or evidence in

support of such contention. He would submit that as per circular

issued by State of Maharashtra dated 27.03.1992 and 26.10.1998, a

seven member committee including Agricultural Development Officer

required to cause panchnama and submit a report of inspection

regarding complaint of defect in seeds. In present case, formation of

committee was not in consonance with composition prescribed under

government circular. Therefore, the report given by District

Agricultural Officer would not have been relied. He would point out

that no scientific reasons are supplied for conclusion that bolting

stalks grown due to defect in seeds.

9. Per contra, Mr. Shambhuraje Deshmukh, learned

advocate appearing for respondents/farmers supports order of

National Commission. He would submit that present writ petitions

are belatedly filed. On that count only, writ petitions need to be

dismissed.

wp-13914-2025 grp.odt (8)

10. Having considered submissions advanced by learned

advocates appearing for respective parties, it can be observed that

there is no dispute that respondents/farmers purchased seeds

manufactured and distributed by petitioners. It is also not disputed

that bolting occurred in onion crops cultivated using seeds sold and

distributed by petitioners. It is also not in dispute that after finding

bolting in onion crops, farmers had complaint to petitioners as well as

government authorities particularly the District Agricultural Officer

and District Seeds Grievance Committee. Panchnama was caused by

District Agricultural Officer and report was submitted by Agricultural

Officer confirming formation of bolting in onion owing to defect in

seeds. Pertinently, to counter aforesaid evidence, no steps are taken

by petitioner/manufacturer before District Forum. They raised mere

defence that report submitted by Agricultural Officer is technically

unsound and cannot form basis to support claim of complainants. At

this stage, reference can be given to observations of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in case of National Seeds Corporation Limited Vs. M.

Madhusudhan Reddy and Another reported in (2012) 2 SCC 506,

wherein it has been observed relying upon observations made in

another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Maharashtra

Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd Vs. Alavalapati Chandra Reddy reported in

(1998) 6 SCC 738 that "if the opposite parties have disputed that the

seeds were not defective they would have applied to the District wp-13914-2025 grp.odt (9)

Forum to send the samples of seeds from the said batch for analysis by

appropriate laboratory. But the opposite parties have not chosen to

file any application for sending the seeds to any laboratory. Since it is

probable that the complainants have sown all the seeds purchased by

them, they were not in a position to send seeds for analysis. In these

circumstances, the order of the District Forum is not vitiated by the

circumstance that it has not on its own accord sent the seeds for

analysis by an appropriate laboratory."

11. At this stage, aforesaid observations clearly applies to

facts of present case. In this case also, although respondents disputed

theory of defect in seeds, they did not took any steps for sending

seeds to laboratory either on their own accord or by order of District

Forum. In case of M. Madhusudan Reddy (supra), the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has further observed that "majority of the farmers in

the country remain illiterate throughout their life because they do not

have access to the system of education. They have no idea about the

Seeds Act and the Rules framed thereunder and other legislations,

like, the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001.

They mainly rely on the information supplied by the Agricultural

Department and government agencies. Ordinarily, nobody would tell

a farmer that after purchasing the seeds for sowing, he should retain a

sample thereof so that in d the event of loss of crop or less yield on

account of defect in the seeds, he may claim compensation from the wp-13914-2025 grp.odt (10)

seller/supplier. In the normal course, a farmer would use the entire

quantity of seeds purchased by him for the purpose of sowing and by

the time he discovers that the crop has failed because the seeds

purchased by him were defective, nothing remains with him which

could be tested in a laboratory. It is further observed that "Rule 13(3)

casts a duty on every person selling, keeping for sale, offering to sell,

bartering or otherwise supplying any seed of notified kind or variety

to keep over a period of three years a complete record of each lot of

seeds sold except that any seed sample may be discarded one year

after the entire lot represented by such sample has been disposed off.

Therefore, it is expected to keep samples of varieties of seeds

sold/supplied to the respondents. If the samples could not be made

available to District Forums for being sent to an appropriate

laboratory for the purpose of analysis or test, farmers cannot be

blamed."

12. In present case, respondents/farmers approached the

competent authority complaining the defect in seeds, who inspected

field of respondents, prepared panchnama and submitted report

which is made part of complaint. The report clearly suggest that loss

is caused to farmers on account of defect in seeds.

13. It appears that District Forum accepted case of petitioners

and granted compensation on the basis of evidence available on

record. However, the State Commission was of the opinion that wp-13914-2025 grp.odt (11)

Committee prescribed under government circulars was not formed or

does not pass the requirement of composition. The national

commission while reversing judgment of State Commission relying

upon observations in case of M. Madhusudhan Reddy (supra)

observed that once agriculturist/farmers approaches

authority/government with complaint regarding defective seeds and

government agency failed to constitute a Committee of requisite

composition, farmers cannot be put to loss for technical defect. The

best possible evidence is available on record in the form of report of

Agricultural Officer, which has been prepared on the basis of

panchnama in presence of representative of petitioner/company and

Zilla Parishad. Similarly, in absence of evidence on rebuttal on the

part of manufacturer, the order of District Forum confirmed by

National Commission cannot be faulted.

14. In second group of petitions filed by dealer, Mr.

Choudhary, learned advocate appearing for petitioners would urge

that in a complaint regarding genetical or manufacturing defect in

seeds, the dealer or distribution cannot be saddled with liability to

pay compensation. The complaint does not make specific attributions

against dealer. No deficiency in service would be attributed against

dealer. In support of his contention, he relies upon observations of

Hindustan Motors Ltd and Another Vs. N. Siva Kumar and Another wp-13914-2025 grp.odt (12)

reported in (2000) 10 SCC 654 and Birbal Vs. State of Punjab

reported in 1993 (1) CLR 523.

15. Per contra, Mr. Deshmukh, learned advocate appearing

for complainants/farmers would submit that the distributor/dealer is

representative of company. There is relationship of principle and

agent between them. The dealer/distributor cannot shrug off his

responsibility in case of defect in product. The aforesaid ground was

never raised before the District Forum or National Commission. The

dealer and manufacturer are supporting each other all along with the

proceedings from District Forum till National Commission. The dealer

cannot be permitted to take a different stand or take benefit of

statutory provisions contained in amended Consumer Protection Act,

2019.

16. Perusal of record nowhere shows that dealer took a

specific stand. They acted as representative of manufacturer. No

specific ground was raised before the Forum to segregate liability of

dealer from liability of manufacturer. The first time submission

advanced relying upon provisions of Consumer Protection Act and

amended provisions of Consumer Protection Act which does not have

retrospective effect cannot be accepted. Although, reliance is placed

on the judgment in case of Hindustan Motors (supra) wherein dealer

was exonerated from liability towards manufacturing defect,

apparently, in that case since manufacturing of car models which was wp-13914-2025 grp.odt (13)

defective was stopped and therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had

directed the manufacturer to refund money along with interest and

exonerated dealer. The order appears to be in the facts of case and

does not lay down principle of law that would be beneficial to

appellant/dealer in present case. Similarly, in case of Birbal (supra),

decided by Punjab and Haryana High Court, the criminal liability

under Insecticides Act and Rules was imposed only against

manufacturer. Such is not a case in hand.

17. In that view of matter, all writ petitions stand dismissed.

18. Rule is discharged.

(S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)

Mujaheed//