Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
R.K. Agrawal, J. (President) and M. Shreesha

ORDER

1. Challenge in these Revision Petitions bearing RP Nos. 279 to 290 of 2018 under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the "Act") is to the common impugned order dated 26.04.2017 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench Nashik (for short "the State Commission.") in First Appeals No. 955 to 960 and First Appeals No. 985 to 990 of 2014 u/s. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act (for short "the Act"). By the impugned order, the State Commission has confirmed the orders of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nashik (for short "the District Forum") after observing thus:-

"We thus heard both the counsel and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that all the complainants had purchased onion seeds manufactured by the appellant. It is seen from the record that as there was bolting in the onion & joint onions, therefore complainants approached to Seeds Grievance Committee. Said committee visited the field and issued its report. As per said report due to defective seeds/adulterated seeds, complainants will suffer 50 to 55% of loss. Therefore complainants approached to Forum. It is also on record that at the time of panchanamas conducted by Seed Grievance Committee representative of appellant company was present. But he did not challenge the said report before higher authorities. In our view, therefore said report remains unchallenged. Though it was directed by State Commission Mumbai to file the affidavits of the officers who conducted the Panchanama, it is difficult for layman to contact the said officers and pursue them to file the affidavits. In our opinion failure of the officers of Seed Grievance Committee to submit the affidavit is not fatal to the case of complainant. In our view, it is for the appellant manufacturing company to prove that seeds manufactured by them were not of defective quality. In our view, the authorities cited Supra by the respondent/complainants are squarely applicable to the facts in the present cases. In our view, therefore there is no merit in the appeals filed by the Horticultural Insurance Company. We are of the view that Dist. Consumer Forum thoroughly studied all the complaints and decided the complaints after appreciation of all the facts and evidence. Hence no interference is required in the orders passed by the Dist. Consumer Forum."

2. The facts in brief are that the Complainants, who are farmers, purchased onion seeds from the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the "Horticultural Foundation"), and sown the same in their fields; that even after due care, the growth of the onion crop was not satisfactory and the same was informed by the Complainants to the Horticultural Foundation and a formal Complaint was also lodged; an Enquiry Committee visited the fields of the Complainants and made a detailed Inspection Report observing that the crop failure was on account of inferior quality of seeds. The Complainants averred that they have also informed the Agricultural Officer, Agricultural Department, Zilla Parishad and a Panchanama was prepared after due inspection. Despite sending a notice to the Horticultural Foundation on 03.05.2007, there was no response. Hence, the Complainants approached the District Forum seeking direction to pay the expenses incurred towards the failure of the crop together with compensation and costs.

3. The Horticultural Foundation filed their Written Version stating therein that it is a Registered Society working on a no-profit-no-loss basis; that proper testing of the seeds was done as per the Seeds Act 1966; that the Complainants did not submit the samples of seeds before the District Forum; that the growth of the onion crop depends upon the soil preparation, usage of fertilizers, timing of sowing and other crop management practices; during the crop period there was excessive rainfall in Nashik District; the crop was affected du........