PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 25.09.2013 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Nagpur (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. A/06/1609 Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. Vs. Babasaheb @ Brahim Pathan by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent possesses Bhukhand No. 103 at Parshioni comprising 2.2 H. land and has sown seeds of Banny Bt. Cotton purchased from OP No. 2/Petitioner No.2 manufactured by OP No.1/Petitioner No. 1. After sowing seeds, complainant found that there was less germination; so, he made complaint to OP No. 2, but as no response was received, he contacted Taluka Agriculture Officer, who visited field on 17.7.2005 and found that there was only 43% germination and prepared Panchanama. Taluka Agriculture Officer forwarded Panchanama to Agricultural Development Officer, Zilla Parishad Nagpur who observed that there was 55-60% germination, but further observed that seed was not defective. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP No. 1 resisted complaint and submitted that seed was not defective as per the record of District Seed Grievances Redressal Committee and Central Cotton Research Institute, Nagpur and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OPs to return cost of seeds of Rs.3636/- and further allowed compensation of Rs.25,000/- as cost of financial loss etc. and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses. Appeal filed by the OPs was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that inspite of report of District Seed Grievances Redressal Committee and Central Cotton Research Institute, Nagpur, learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law and no revision is maintainable against the concurrent findings of fact; hence, revision petition be dismissed. 5. As far maintainability of revision petition is concerned, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that in the light of judgment of Honle Apex Court in (2011) CPJ 19 (SC) Subi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., no revision is maintainable unless there is jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice. We agree with the law laid down by Honle Apex Court, but in the light of observations made in the aforesaid judgment, revision petition is maintainable if there is miscarriage of justice. 6. Now, it is to be seen whether there is any miscarriage of justice? 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent has not filed any document pertaining to land owned by him. Learned Counsel for the respondent admitted that he has not filed any document pertaining to land in which crop has been sown. Admittedly, complainant has not placed any revenue record to come to the conclusion that he possesses land and has sown crop. Learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal and complaint was liable to be dismissed. 8. As far less germination of seed is concerned, inspection report dated 17.8.2005 made by Taluka Krushi Adhikari reveals that live plant percentage was only 30% and as per rules he submitted his report to District Seed Grievances Redressal Committee who inspected filed on 1.9.2005 and found that there was germination of 69.02% and further they came to the conclusion that there was no defect in the seeds. Learned State Commission without any basis observed in the impugned order that credential of the report is doubtful and it is also doubtful that Committee visited the field of the complainant. Not only this, report of Central Cotton Research Institute, Nagpur dated 14.2.2006 further reveals that 100% seeds were positive for the presence of Bt. protein meaning thereby, seeds were not defective. Learned State Commission brushed aside this report on the ground that it does not relate to non-germination of seeds, but it gives opinion with regard to Bt. Cotton character stick. Report of the Institute is very clear according to which, seeds were 100% positive for the presence of Bt. protein and in such circumstances, learned District Forum committed error in not considering these reports and learned State Commission further committed error in brushing aside both the reports on surmises and conjectures and revision petition is to be allowed. 9. Learned Counsel for the respondent also placed reliance on the following judgments of this Commission: (2013) CPJ 241 (NC) - Maharashtra State Seeds Corpn. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Arvind Bajirao Borkar & Ors. (2014) CPJ 703 (NC) Dharam Pal & Sons * Ors. Vs. Som Prakash (2008) CPJ 119 (NC) Pratham Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sayed Javed Sayad Amir & Anr. (2004) CPJ 122 (NC) National Seeds Corpn. Ltd. Vs. M. Madhusudan Reddy but they are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 10. Learned Counsel for the respondent has also drawn our attention towards brochure in which 75% germination has been assured. Germination depends upon number of factors and as per report of District Seed Grievances Redressal Committee, seeds were not defective. Merely because there was 15% less germination, it cannot be held that seeds produced by OP No. 1 and sold by OP No. 2 were defective. 11. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed at admission stage and impugned order dated 25.9.2013 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. A/06/1609 Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. Vs. Babasaheb @ Brahim Pathan and order of District Forum in Complaint No. 40/05 Shri Babasaheb alias Ibrahim Pathan Vs. The Manager Saheb, Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. & Anr. is set aside and complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.