Complainant/Respondent No.1 purchased onion seeds produced by the Petitioner (OP-2) through its agent Respondent No.2 (OP-1) and sowed the same in 2 acres of land. The seeds did not germinate even after 10-12 days. Complainant approached the opp.parties but they did not pay any heed. Complainant filed representation with the Taluka Agricultural Officer, who, after inspection reported that the onion seeds supplied by Respondent No.2 were defective. Being aggrieved, complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum. Petitioner, on being served, put in appearance and took the stand that the seeds were of good quality and there was no defect in the same; that in view of the Circular dated 26.10.1998 issued by Govt. of Maharashtra, it was incumbent on the Committee to intimate the date on which the Field Inspection was to be carried; that the petitioner could be present at the time of field inspection. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner along with Respondent No.2 jointly and severally to pay compensation of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant within 45 days with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till payment. Rs.50,000/- were awarded by way of compensation. Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by observing thus : 3 “We perused the papers and considered the augments advanced by learned counsel. The appellant is not in dispute regarding the purchase of seeds by complainant from respondent No.2 produced by them. It is apparent from the papers that complainant had filed the application before Taluka Agricultural Office, for non-germination. It also appears that the District Seeds Committee had visited the land on 20.09.2009 and found the germination to the extent of 1% only. The appellant did not adduce any sort of evidence to rebut evidence produced by the complainant. The contention of appellant that complainant did not produce the seeds before committee for getting tested in the laboratory cannot be accepted. No farmer preserves the seeds for getting tested in the laboratory. Appellant could have produced the seeds before Forum No such evidence is brought on record by the appellant. Forum has rightly considered all these aspects. Report of District Seeds Committee shows that the germination is to the extent of 1% only. Fourm also considered the yield which could have been obtained in 50-R only. Forum rightly calculated the compensation. We are not inclined to interfere the order passed by the Forum. Appeal is dismissed summarily.” District Complaint Redressal Committee and Agricultural Development Officer, Zila Parishad Ahmednagar, in their report have stated that the seeds supplied were defective. Manufacturer did not mention the germination power, period and details as required under the Seeds Act 1966; that the Committee 4 was of the opinion that the manufacturer did not mention regarding the germination capacity of the seeds because of ulterior motive [word “suspicious” is used in the report]. Petitioner did not produce any evidence to rebut the evidence produced by the complainant. Since the germination was only 1%, we assume that the seeds supplied by the petitioner were defective. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. | 
