M/S Shyam Beej Bhandar vs. Suresh Etc.

2026 INSC 158
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.13749-13755 OF 2024
M/s SHYAM BEEJ BHANDAR
& ANR. ETC. …APPELLANTS
VERSUS
SURESH ETC. …RESPONDENT(S)


J U D G M E N T
NAGARATHNA, J.
The producer and distributor of groundnut seeds, namely,
M/s. Shyam Beej Bhandar and Shree Ram Agro Bio-Tech
(“appellants”, for short) respectively have filed these appeals
assailing the order dated 19.03.2021 passed by the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (“NCDRC”,
for short) in Revision Petition Nos.1275 to 1281 of 2019.
2. By the impugned order, the NCDRC has set aside the order
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU SACHDEVA
Date: 2026.02.14
10:34:48 IST
Reason:
dated 04.04.2019 passed by the State Consumer Disputes
1


Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (“State Commission”, for short)
which was in favour of the appellants and thereby sustained the
order dated 28.08.2018 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Alwar, Rajasthan (“District Forum”,
for short) in all the complaints filed by the respondents-farmers.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondents-
farmers approached the appellant for the purchase of ground nut
seeds on 15.06.2013. Around four months later, in October, a
complaint was filed by the respondents-farmers before the Deputy
Director (Agriculture), District Council, Alwar alleging sub-
standard quality of the seeds leading to the failure of the crop.
Accordingly, a committee was constituted to investigate the
failure of the crop. The committee submitted its inspection report
on 09.10.2013. Thereafter, the respondents-farmers filed
complaints under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,
1986 before the District Forum. The District Forum, vide order
dated 28.08.2018, allowed the complaints and directed the
appellant(s) to make payment of different amounts to the
respondents-farmers along with compensation of Rs.20,000/-
and cost of the suit at Rs.5,000/- each. Aggrieved, the appellant
2


preferred Appeal No.754/2018 before the State Commission. The
State Commission, vide order dated 04.04.2019, set aside the
order of the District Commission dated 28.08.2018. In turn, the
respondents-farmers moved the NCDRC by filing Revision Petition
Nos.1275-1282 of 2019. Vide the impugned order dated
19.03.2021, the NCDRC set aside the order of the State
Commission and restored the order of the District Forum.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and
learned counsel for the respondents-farmers at length and
perused the material on record including the complaints filed by
the respondents-farmers; the order passed by the District Forum
dated 28.08.2018; the order passed by the State Commission
which has set aside the aforesaid order of the District Forum; and
the impugned order passed by the NCDRC on dated 19.03.2021
which has sustained the order of the District Forum.
5. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the
respective parties drew our attention to the Investigation/
Inspection Report (Annexure P-1) dated 09.10.2013. For ease of
reference, the said report is extracted as under:

3


“ INVESTIGATION/INSPECTION REPORT

Investigation inspection report in the complaint of the
farmers from Village Katopur, Tehsil Kotkasim in relation
to demeritorious groundnut crops.

The complaints of the demeritorious groundnut crops of
the farmers from Village Katopur, Tehsil Kotkasim have
been received by this office from the office of the
respected District Collector, Alwar. The farmers from
Katopur i.e. Shri Dilip Singh, Chait Ram, Suresh, Abhay
Singh, Puran, Ramphal, Subey Singh, Jai Prakash,
Vishambhar etc. have submitted in the complaint of the
demeritorious crops that "groundnut seeds were sown
over a land of 250 Bigha and that all the bags i.e. 300
bags were purchased from Shyam Beej Bhandar, 125
Nemi Chand Market, Alwar. The crops of groundnut ripen
within 3 to 3.5 months time but till now the crops being
demeritorious as: the quality of seeds being substandard
and due to the said sub-standard seeds the crops over
250 Bigha of land in the village have become
demeritorious." The details of the invoices of Shyam Beej
Bhandar annexed along with the complaint is as
following:-

4

A total amount with the details of quantity along with the
rate of Groundnut Shri Ram T/L (TAG 37 A) is mentioned
in the bills annexed with the complaint For the purpose
of the disposal of the said compliant a committee was
formed vide the Office of the Deputy Director Agricultural
Order No. 5407-12 Dated 08.10.2013 wherein the
following persons were nominated members:

5

The said formed Committee after perusing the complaint
dated 09.10.2013, received from the farmers and after
discussion it was decided to conduct a physical
verification/inspection over the fields. In the complaint
received from the farmers mainly it was mentioned for
disposal of the complaint over two issues:

1. In relation to defective groundnut seed as mentioned in
the said bills.

2. In relation to sub-standard quality of the groundnut
seed as mentioned in the said bills.

For the purpose of verification of the facts mentioned in
the complaint all the members of the Committee during
the physical verification inspection found the following
facts/reality and the pointwise details of which is sent in
the following manner:

(A) On the basis of documents received annexed with the
complaint:-

1. In the bills annexed by the farmers along with the
complaint the Lot No. of species of TAG 37 A wherein it is
recorded as SR-51 but the complete details of the seed
manufacturer have not been recorded; whereas on the
empty bags being provided by the farmers whereupon the
address of the manufacturer is found printed as Packed
and marketed by Shri Ram Agro Biotech. Plot No.7,
Anand Sagar Tenament, Government Jeen Road, Himmat
6


Nagi, Gujarat along with the customer care No.02772-
241948.

2. According to the complaint of the farmers the TAG 37A
species mentioned in the bills of the farmers was
recorded as TL (Truth Full). The said species is a certified
Species on the basis of notification. The certified seeds
are certified by the Government Seed Certification
Institute by issuing-a TAG; whereas the seed company
itself is accountable for the packing of seeds as TL (Truth
Full), Hence the seed manufacturing company is
completely responsible for the said allegation.

(B)On the basis of site inspection/physical verification of
the filed of the farmers mentioned in the complaint:-

The physical verification/inspection of the fields of all the
farmers as mentioned in the bills of farmers recorded in
the complaint was conducted wherein the pointwise
details of which are sent in the following manner:

1. It was found on physical verification/inspection of all
the fields that 8-10 percent of the pods present in the
fields are of different species in addition to the pods
grown with TAG 37A and in the plants of other species
that were found wherein the species of semi-developing
plants were also found; whereas TAG 37A is completely a
Jhumka species.
2. On completely pulling out the species of groundnut
grown with TAG 37A on the basis of a random number
and on the basis of counting of the PODS the conclusion
was derived that on an average of 50 percent PODS were
found 'completely developed in a single plant and the
semi- development of the remaining PODS were seen;
whereas the said species ripen in 100 to 110 days
timeline.

3. The other species sown by the farmers on other fields
were also got inspected wherein the crops of groundnut
were found satisfactory and a complete development of
7


the PODS was found but due to frequent rains there is a
possibility of a shortfall of 20-25 percent in the
production; whereas in the case of TAG37A the said
possibility may be around 40-50 percent shortfall The
arboreal growth of the species mentioned in the
complaint was found satisfactory and from which it is
very clear that in view of the fertility of land and the
condition of the crops is completely favoring the
groundnut crops and sufficient sources of irrigation have
been found available with the farmers.

4. It is found on inspection of all the fields of the farmers
that weeds were growing in large number over the fields.

5. The germination of the seeds has remained normal
over all the filed as disclosed by the farmers. The number
of PODS were found adequate over the fields.

6. On examination of the PODS over the fields of the
farmers it was observed that the PODS were infected with
the Tika disease.

7. This year due to frequent rains in the months of July
August the arboreal growth has been found in large.
Such circumstances are found in the crops of Kharif and
Jwar etc. also. Due to large arboreal growth in the PODS
the breeding condition is largely affected. Therefore for
the said reason here are possibilities of a shortfall of 20
to 25 present in the production of Kharif groundnut and
Jwar crops.

The said conclusion is drawn on deliberating all the said
facts that

1. On the basis of physical verification the said described
species sown by the farmers wherein 8-10 percent of
plants were found mixed belonging to some other species.
Therefore the circumstances appear that the seeds are
defective.

8



2. On the site inspection of the fields. on the basis of
random number due to the semi development of the pods
in the plants in comparison other species there are
possibilities of yielding a deficit of 20-25 percent in the
Said species.

3. In relation to the quality of the seeds mentioned in the
complaint of farmers, the exact conclusion can be derived
in relation to quality on the basis of taking sample of
same species seed and on testing through Grow out Test
(G.O.T) by the Pod Breeding Scientist.

4. Due to the Semi-development in the pods of the said
species the market price of the crops will also be affected
and due which the farmers will not receive fair price.”


6. Learned counsel for the appellants drew our attention to the
conclusions in the report and contended that the State
Commission was justified in setting aside the order passed by the
District Forum and holding in favour of the appellants. However,
the NCDRC has failed to appreciate the order of the State
Commission as well as the Investigation/Inspection Report dated
09.10.2013 in proper perspective and consequently set aside the
order of the State Commission and restored the order of the
District Forum. It was contended that when there was no
deficiency of service on the part of the appellants, the NCDRC was
not right in holding that there was deficiency as such.
9



7. Learned counsel for the appellants therefore submitted that
the impugned order(s) of the NCDRC as well as the order(s) of the
District Forum may be set aside and the orders of the State
Commission may be sustained. Consequently, the complaint(s)
filed by the respondents-farmers may be dismissed.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-farmers
contended that the District Forum had fully appreciated the case
of the respondents-farmers and the reasons as to why there was a
loss caused to the complainants. The District Forum had also
made a very conservative estimate of the compensation to be
awarded to the respondents-farmers. In fact, there has been no
challenge to the same for enhancement. Therefore, the National
Commission has rightly set aside the order of the State
Commission which had dismissed the complaints and
consequently the order of the District Forum has to be now
complied with by the appellants. It was submitted that the
respondents-farmers purchased the seeds with full faith and trust
that the ground-nut crop would be a bumper crop. However, they
were disappointed that even after 100 days there was no yield at
10


all. Therefore, there was indeed deficiency in service and hence
the order passed by the NCDRC may be upheld and the appeals
may be dismissed as being without any merit.
9. We have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar in
light of the Investigation/Inspection Report dated 09.10.2023.
Paragraph 2 of the said Report with regard to the observation
made on physical verification/inspection of the fields of the
farmers is particularly relevant. On pulling out the species of
ground-nut grown with TAG37A, the Scientists/Investigators/
Investors found that 50% pods were found “completely developed
in a single plant and the semi-development of the remaining PODS
were seen whereas the said species ripen in 100 to 110 days
timeline”.
10. The inspection was made in October 2013 and the sowing of
the ground nut seeds was sometime in June and that even after
120 days; on inspection, it was found that the seeds had not
matured. The aforesaid finding is a categorical finding which has
been made by the Inspectors/Scientists and experts.

11


11. It is necessary to observe that the inspection has been done
after completion of 110 days whereas the timeline is 100-110
days. In the conclusion of the aforesaid Report, it has been stated
that due to semi-development in the pods of the said species, the
market price of the crops would be affected and the farmers
would not receive a fair price for the same. In this regard,
paragraph 2 of the Report states that 50% of the pods were
completely developed. This would lead to the conclusion that the
remaining 50% of the pods were not completely developed.
12. In the circumstances, we find that the District Forum as
well as the NCDRC were not right in assessing the compensation
per bigha. It is also necessary to note that the Report also takes
note of the fact that there was excess rain and owing thereto
insofar as TAG37A quality of seeds is concerned, there could be
40-50% shortfall in yield. In this regard, the contention of learned
counsel for the appellants is that the shortfall is owing to natural
causes. It is a case of vis-major and therefore, the District Forum
as well as the NCDRC could not have fastened any liability on the
appellants herein on the premise that there was a deficiency in
service caused by the appellants.
12



13. It was therefore, contended by learned counsel for the
appellants that if this Court is inclined to grant any
compensation to the respondents-farmers, then the entire
amount which has been deposited by the appellants may not be
released to the respondents-farmers. It was also submitted that
the inference and findings regarding deficiency in service on the
part of the appellants may be set aside.
14. In regard to these two specific submissions, learned counsel
for the respondents-farmers contended that they do not merit any
consideration in view of the fact that NCDRC has given a clear
finding of deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and
therefore, the appeals may be simply dismissed.
15. We have considered the two specific submissions made by
learned counsel for the appellants in light of the contents of the
Report which we have extracted above. We find that the Report
also takes into consideration the fact that there was excess
rainfall during the relevant period and as a result there was a
very good arboreal growth of the species but nevertheless the
pods were semi-developed and only 50% of the pods were found
13


completely developed. From this, we infer that there was no
complete deficiency of service as has been observed by the
District Forum as well as by the NCDRC. However, the fact also
remains that there was semi-development of the reaming pods
which is also highlighted in the Report.
16. In the circumstances, we find that the interest of justice
would be served if we direct release of 50% of the compensation
amount which has been deposited by the appellants before the
District Forum pursuant to interim order dated 02.08.2021
passed by this Court and complied with by the appellants on
24.08.2021, to the respondents-farmers along with accrued
interest, if any. The remaining 50% of the compensation
deposited along with accrued interest, if any, shall be refunded to
the appellants.
17. In view of the aforesaid order, we set aside the findings of
the District Forum which have been sustained by the NCDRC
with regard to the aspect of deficiency of service found against the
appellants and modify the said orders accordingly.

14


The appeals are allowed in part in the aforesaid terms.
Parties to bear their respective costs.
Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.

…..………………………………J.
[B.V. NAGARATHNA]




……………………………………J.
[UJJAL BHUYAN]


NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 05, 2026.

15