By this common order we shall dispose off RP No. 23, 24 and 25 of 2011. Facts have been taken from RP No. 23 of 2011. Complainants/Respondents No. 1 to 4 filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Petitioner which was Opposite Party No. 2 and its OP-1 agent which is Respondent No. 5 herein. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the deceased father of the complainant who was an agriculturist by profession purchased sunflower seeds of Ravi Kiran variety from the R-5 dealer. The seeds were produced by the Petitioner. He purchased 25 packets on 26.02.2005 and 10 packets on 17.03.2005 @ Rs. 480/- per packet. Complainant found that despite proper crop management, administering manure, pesticides etc., the plants did not blossom into full flower. The size of the flower was small and the petals around the flower head are closed and the grain setting was not up to the mark. There was failure of grain filling. It was of inferior quality due to which they could not even get the assured yield of 10 quintals per acre. Complainants approached the Joint Director of Agriculture Kurnool who directed Mandal Officer to inspect the fields. Mandal Agricultural Officer inspected the fields and referred the case to Assistant Director of Agriculture. Assistant Director of Agriculture after inspecting the crops gave the following report:- . The Crop is in harvesting stage. Hence, it is not coverable under MOU on Seeds. 2. On detailed verification in the field, it is observed that some flower heads are not agreeing with the characters deposited by the company. Flower petals are found curled on the flower and the farmers have sustained loss. Assistant Director of Agriculture submitted its report to the Joint Director. Joint Director confirmed the report submitted by the Assistant Director and directed the Petitioner to pay Rs. 78,000/- to the Respondents. In the complaint filed by the Complainant it was stated that Complainant had suffered total loss of crop of over 20 quintals and prevailing rates at that time was Rs. 1800/- per quintal. He claimed Rs. 1,52,100/- towards agricultural expenses and Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioner and Respondent No. 5 to jointly and severally pay a total sum of Rs. 1,11,800/- to the Complainants. Petitioner and Respondent No. 5 then filed an appeal before the State Commission which was dismissed. Counsel for the parties have been heard. It is not disputed before us that the initial onus to prove that the seeds were defective and substandard was on the complainants. Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the report of the Joint Director, Agriculture nowhere states that the seeds supplied were defective or of substandard quality. Onus to prove the same was on the Respondents which the Respondents had failed to prove by leading any cogent evidence. We have gone through the report submitted by the Assistant Director Agriculture which has been confirmed by the Joint Director. The same has been reproduced in the earlier part of the order. The report of the Joint Director Agriculture nowhere states that there was any genetic deficiency in the seeds produced by the Petitioner and supplied by Respondent No. 5 dealer or the said seeds were of substandard quality. There is no evidence to prove that the seeds supplied were either defective or of substandard quality. The Respondents failed to discharge the initial onus put on them. The fora below have erred in allowing the complaint and directing the Petitioner to pay the compensation to the Respondents. For the reasons stated above the present Revision Petitions are accepted and orders of the fora below are set aside.