Farmers rarely file complaints before the consumer courts constituted under the Consumer Protection Act. But when they do, such complaints invariably pertain to their very source of livelihood, farming or agriculture. In all such cases, it is obvious that farmers need help urgently to overcome the financial crisis caused by the failure of the crop. So whenever they file a complaint before the consumer court seeking compensation against defective seeds, fertilisers or pesticides, the least that the consumer courts can do is to take up such cases on a priority basis and give the farmers relief in the quickest time possible. In fact, such cases should be heard to the exclusion of all others and settled in record time so that the farmers in distress get some relief quickly. This urgency is heightened by the increasing number of suicides by farmers, particularly in states such as Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Karnataka.

But look at the reality — a bunch of class action suits filed by around 130 farmers from Maharashtra, seeking compensation for the loss of yield caused by the poor quality of hybrid cotton seeds sold to them, took 14 long years. Is it any wonder then that during the pendency of the case 10 farmers died? Maybe they died from natural causes or maybe they committed suicide. The entire chain of events puts a huge question mark over the suitability of this forum (consumer courts) for farmers in distress. Unless, of course, the Union ministry of consumer affairs gives specific instructions to all the consumer courts in the country to take up complaints by farmers on a priority basis and complete the process of resolution of disputes within the shortest possible time.

The complaint in this case pertained to defective hybrid cotton seeds that caused immense loss to the farmers during the sowing season of 1992-93. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum awarded the farmers Rs 6,000 per acre of land sown along with interest calculated at the rate of 18 per cent per annum, besides a compensation of Rs 5,000 and costs of Rs 2,000. Appeals were filed against this before the consumer courts at the state and later, the national level. The apex consumer court upheld the relief given to the farmers (except for the rate of interest, which it reduced to 12 per cent) but by then, several years had passed (RP no. 524 of 1997 and others, decided on August 7, 2007).

Is this the kind of justice that is envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act?