https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197215 Consumer complaints for crop loss from defective seeds remained maintainable because the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides an additional remedy and neither the Seeds Act, 1966 nor an arbitration clause ousted that jurisdiction. Growers purchasing seeds for cultivation under a livelihood-based scheme were held to be consumers, as the commercial-purpose exclusion did not apply on the facts. The absence of laboratory testing and strict sample preservation was not fatal where the entire seed stock had been sown and expert field inspections, commissioners' reports, and agricultural officer evidence supported defect and crop failure. The compensation awards were therefore sustained. en-us Mon, 16 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Jul 2023 10:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197215 Consumer complaints for crop loss from defective seeds remained maintainable because the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides an additional remedy and neither the Seeds Act, 1966 nor an arbitration clause ousted that jurisdiction. Growers purchasing seeds for cultivation under a livelihood-based scheme were held to be consumers, as the commercial-purpose exclusion did not apply on the facts. The absence of laboratory testing and strict sample preservation was not fatal where the entire seed stock had been sown and expert field inspections, commissioners' reports, and agricultural officer evidence supported defect and crop failure. The compensation awards were therefore sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 16 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197215