Petitioner is the producer of seeds and was opposite party No. 2 before the District Forum. Complainant/respondent No. 1 purchased sunflower seeds produced by the petitioner on 05.07.2004. The seeds were sown in the land Gat No. 505 admeasuring 3 acres. At the time of flowering of the crop it was found that flowers were not of similar size and quality. That the flowers were not bearing the seeds. As the quality of flowers was not found as per expectation and promise given by the petitioner, complainant/Respondent No. 1 approached to District Seeds Grievance Committee. District Agricultural Development Officer visited the field and submitted his report as under:- ith reference to your above application, the District Disputes Grievance Committee had inspected your field on 17.11.2004. The Committee has observed admixture. However, the final report will be given after receipt of report of laboratory by sending the seed samples of said lot no. Seeds were thereafter sent to Seeds Testing Laboratory Nagpur which reported that the seeds supplied were of 98% purity. Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum which was allowed in part and petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 21,000/- towards compensation for loss of crop within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order along with costs of seeds of Rs. 1100/- and Rs. 5000/- by way of compensation towards mental agony. Petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned order. Counsel for the parties have been heard. The onus to prove that the seeds were defective was on the complainant/respondent No. 1 as it was he who alleged that the seeds supplied were defective. Complainant/respondent No. 1 did not produce any independence evidence except from producing the report of the Agricultural Development Officer, Zila Parishad Osmanabad dated 13.01.2005. A perusal of the contents of the said report produced in the earlier part of the order shows that the Committee did not find that the seeds supplied were defective. The Committee only observed admixture of seeds. The seeds were then sent to the seed testing laboratory Nagpur which testify that the seeds were of 98% purity. The State Commission has not accepted the report of the Seed Testing Laboratory on the ground that it was not sure that the seeds sent to the Government laboratory for testing were from the same lot which was supplied to the complainant. As stated above-mentioned the initial onus to prove that the seeds were defective was on the respondent No. 1 which he failed to prove by leading any cogent evidence. In the absence of evidence that the seeds supplied were defective the orders passed by the fora below cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside. Revision petition is allowed and the complaint is ordered to be dismissed.