Bengaluru: After quitting his job as a lecturer to take up farming, 31-year-old Nagesh M Bin’s hopes of a bumper cucumber harvest were crushed. He blamed defective seeds. However, when he was offered 50 seed packets instead, the farmer approached Bangalore Urban II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which ruled in his favour by ordering the company to pay him about Rs 2.2 lakh.Nagesh, from Doddamaranahalli in Bengaluru South taluk, quit his job at his parents’ insistence to take up agriculture. His family is fully dependent on farm income for its livelihood.He decided to cultivate cucumbers on one acre of his land and approached Shri Gangadhareshwar Traders in Tavarekere, where the dealer recommended Suvarna Hybrid Seeds Pvt Ltd’s F-1 Hybrid Shanthi cucumber. Nagesh purchased five packets for Rs 1,750 on July 19, 2023, and sowed them the same day. At the same time, he bought two packets and sowed IVIZ seeds for Chitra cucumber.Trouble surfaced early, with poor germination and stunted growth of Shanthi cucumber. The eventual yield was inferior in size, shape and colour. When Nagesh raised concerns, the dealer directed him to the producer. Company representatives visited the field, inspected his crop, took photographs and assured him the issue would be escalated. A subsequent visit by another representative, accompanied by a person introduced as a scientist, led to assurances that compensation would be considered.On Nov 9, 2023, another company representative contacted Nagesh and offered 50 seed packets worth Rs 15,000 as compensation. The same day, Nagesh filed a written complaint with the senior assistant director of horticulture, Bengaluru South, prompting an official inspection of the field.Nagesh said he spent around Rs 1.1 lakh on cultivation, including land preparation, manure, labour, tractor rent, bed preparation, bamboo supports, irrigation materials, fertilisers and insecticides. Under normal conditions, he claimed, the crop would have yielded 33,000-38,000kg, fetching about Rs 3.2 lakh. Alleging defective seeds and deficiency in service, he approached the consumer commission on Nov 29, 2023.In its defence, the producer maintained that it has been producing seeds for several years without complaints and follows stringent quality checks, including in-house and third-party testing. It alleged poor agricultural practices led to the low yield. The producer also argued that no seed samples were submitted for scientific testing and that poor yield alone does not establish a defect.The company contended that the report did not conclusively prove inferior seeds and that inspection after over 70 days made findings unreliable. Denying any compensation offer, they termed the allegations false and attributed losses to poor crop management and market conditions.After going through records and hearing both sides, the commission relied on the horticulture department’s spot inspection report. It noted that two varieties — Shanthi and Chitra — were grown under identical conditions, including drip irrigation and fertiliser use. While the Chitra crop yielded good produce, the Shanthi variety showed poor germination, irregular shape, dark colour and low yield, pointing to defective seeds.The commission acknowledged delays in inspection but held that evidence, including photographs and records, supported the farmer’s claims. The commission observed that the company too had failed to produce batch samples for verification.On March 3, 2026, the bench, comprising president Vijaykumar M Pawale and member Anuradha V, held the trader and manufacturer guilty of deficiency in service. It directed them to pay Rs 2 lakh as compensation, along with Rs 10,000 for mental agony and Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs.
