1. Heard ld. Counsels appearing for the applicant. The Review Application No. 23/5 filed by the Applicant – OP-1 & 2 for review of the Order dated 06.04.2023 of this Commission in Consumer Complaint No. 133 of 2022.
2. Perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 06.04.2023 of this Commission and the Review application no. RA/23/5.
3. The grounds viz: (1) non-compliance with the principal of natural justice i.e. No notice was given to the petitioners company to join the inspection and (2) supplier of seeds i.e. OP no.2 held liable without any finding & contrary to this commission own view in similar other cases.
4. These grounds in Review Application are already answered in similar circumstances in RP before the Hon’ble National Commission.
5. The Hon’ble National Commission in its judgment REVISION PETITION NO. 1203 OF 2018 DISTRICT MANAGER, MAHARASHTRA STATE SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. & ANR. vs 1. DADASAHEB VASANTRAO DESHMUKH & 3 ORS Order dated 12 July, 2018 in Para no. 10.

          “10.    It was contended before the State Commission that the complainants did not ask the District Forum to send the samples of the seeds purchased by them to a laboratory for analysing the same and reporting whether there was any adulteration in the seeds or not.  The following view taken by this Commission in Reliance Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Umesh Singh Chandan Singh Saddiwal & Anr. in RP/1033/2015 and connected matters decided on 14.1.2016, is relevant in this regard:

“17.    It was contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the complainants did not request the District Forum to send the samples of the seeds purchased by them to a laboratory, in terms of Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, and in the absence of analysis by an appropriate laboratory, as defined in Section 2(1)(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act, the District Forum and the State Commission were not justified in holding that the seeds purchased by the complainants were defective.  We however, find no merit in the contention.  A farmer purchases the seeds for the purpose of using them in his fields and while sowing the seeds, he has no reason to suspect that the seeds purchased by him may turn out to be defective or sub-standard.  Therefore, he would have no reason to retain a part of the seeds purchased by him.  Consequently, he is not in a position to offer the sample of the seeds for analysis by an appropriate laboratory.  The manufacturer / supplier of the seeds on the other hand, may possibly have the samples of such seeds available with him, even at the time notices of a consumer complaint is received by him.  Therefore, if he seeks to dispute the allegation of the seeds being defective or sub-standard, he must necessarily offer the sample available with him to the District Forum for sending the same to an appropriate laboratory for carrying out an analysis to determine whether the said seeds suffer from a defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect or not.  Admittedly, no such endeavour was made, either by the petitioner or by its dealer, when they appeared before the District Forum.

18.    A similar issue arose before this Commission in Revision Petition No. 381 of 2012 Ankur Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Motilal & Anr.  In that case, a complaint alleging poor quality of the seed was lodged by the farmer with the Senior Agriculture Development Officer and Garden Superintendent of the concerned Block.  The fields were then inspected by the Senior Agriculture Development Officer, who reported that the size was irregular and less than the standard claimed by the company.  It was also found that the cucumbers were irregular in shape, their colour was not green and there was less grooming of flowers.  The District Forum and the State Commission, having ruled in favour of the complainants, the matter was agitated before this Commission by way of a revision petition, which was heard by a Bench of two-Members.  Since there was a difference of opinion in the aforesaid Bench, the reference to the Hon’ble President of this Commission was made under Section 20(1A)(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act.  It was inter-alia contended on behalf of the petitioners that the report of the Senior Agriculture Development Officer could not be relied upon as the fields were inspected without notice to them and the complainants had failed to obtain any reports about the quality of the seeds from a recognized laboratory. Rejecting the contention, the Hon’ble President who along with one of the Hon’ble Members constituted majority in the Bench,  inter-alia held as under:

    “14. In National Seeds Corporation Limited Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr. (2012) 2 SCC 506, analysing the provisions of the Seeds Act, 1966, particularly with reference to Section 13(1)(c) of the Act, which confers power on Consumer Fora to obtain test report from an appropriate laboratory with a view to finding out whether the goods in question suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint, the Supreme Court observed as follows:…………….

(emphasis supplied)

6. Since the manufacturer / supplier of the seeds are kept on same footing by Hon’ble National Commission and the ground of non service of notice   was rejected in view of Hon’ble Apex court judgment same need not be separately decided by us since we are bound by the judgment of Superior courts. The objections raised by the OP-1 & 2 appear to be just technicality and the delaying tactics, not to comply the final order.
7. As far as the second ground taken by the applicant is concerned-i.e. the supplier of seeds i.e. OP no.2 held liable without any finding & contrary to this commission own view in similar other cases. On perusal of pleading and prayer of complainant in CC/133/2022 and the admitted fact that OP no.2 is authorized distributor is equally liable for supply of defective seeds. Each consumer complaint has its own facts and circumstances therefore in our considered view the ground is untenable in review.
8. The Order of 06.04.2023 in CC/133/2022 is self-contained and self-speaking. No apparent error is visible. No good reason to recall or modify the said Order is discernible. Consequently, Review Application no. RA/23/5 is dismissed. The Order dated 06.04.2023 stands as it stood.
9. The Registry is requested to supply the certified copy of this Order to the Applicants on Fee as per Regulation 21 (6) on prescribed fee and to their learned counsel within three days, if they apply. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of Consumer Commission immediately.