Appeared at the time of arguments through video conferencing For Petitioner : Mr. J. L. Bhoot, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Pradeep Dahiya, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : NEMO Pronounced on: 8th January 2021 ORDER PER DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER 1. By this Order, we propose to dispose of the above noted Revision Petitions involving similar question of law and fact arising out of common Order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) dated 22.09.2014 in Appeal Nos. 1235, 1236, 1237 & 1720 of 2011. 2. The facts are that the Respondents/Complainants are the agriculturalists. They purchased the seeds developed and manufactured by Ankur Seeds Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Opposite Party No. 1”) and Rashi Seeds (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Opposite Party No. 3”) through their respective dealers. The Opposite Party No. 3 has not been made a party in the instant Revision Petitions. The Complainants purchased the seeds on assurance by the dealers of the Petitioner that the seeds were of good quality and would yield crop of about 10 quintals per acre and that the crop from the said seeds would be immune to “Leaf Curl Virus”, other diseases and insects etc. As per instructions, they sowed the seeds and also used right quantity of pesticides and fertilisers. However, the growth of crop was not proper, it gave very less fruits bearing and suffered from “Leaf Curl Virus”. The Complainant and the respective dealers admitted that there was less growth of crop and less yield. The Complainant filed a Complaint with the Agriculture Officer, who visited the site and observed in his report that the loss caused to the crop was due to “Leaf Curl Virus” and that the farmers had suffered monetary loss. However, the Petitioner failed to pay any compensation to the respective Complainants. Being aggrieved, the Complainants approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Firozpur (hereinafter referred to as the “District Forum”) for the compensation. 3. The Opposite Parties in their respective Written Version admitted the sale of seeds to the Complainants. It was, however, denied that any assurance as to yield was given. The Opposite Parties pleaded that yield of crop depends upon so many external and environmental factors like agriculture practice, application of seed rate, climatic condition, water intervals, sowing of seeds in depth, attack of pests and diseases, doses of fertilizers/pesticides, soil and water, etc. It was further alleged that as per the report of the Agriculture Officer, plants were suffering from “Leaf Curl Virus”, which is caused by white fly transmitted virus and it has nothing to do with the quality of seed. 4. The District Forum, Ferozepur vide respective Orders, allowed the Complaints and awarded compensation to the respective Respondents/Complainants. Being aggrieved by the Orders of the District Forum, the Petitioner/Opposite Party No. 1 preferred Appeals before the State Commission Punjab, which were dismissed vide common Order dated 22.09.2014 concurred with the Order of the District Forum. Thus, these present Revision Petitions. 5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argued that this Commission allowed number of similar Revision Petitions filed by the different Seed Cos. and dismissed the Complaints. In his support, the Counsel relied upon the following judgments of this Commission: i. Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd. Vs. Ishwarbhai Baburao Thakare & Ors., R.P. No. 4319 of 2012, decided on 05.01.2016; ii. Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. Vs. Garapati Srinivas Rao & Anr., R.P. No. 2602 of 2008 & Ors., decided on 12.02.2014; iii. Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd. vs. B. Yedukondalu & Ors., R.P. No. 2272 of 2010 & Ors., decided on 27.04.2011; iv. Syngenta India Ltd. vs. P. Chowdaiah & Ors., R.P. No. 1451 of 2011 & Ors., decided on 31.07.2013; v. Mahyco Monsanto Bio Tech (India) Ltd. vs. Doddabasappa & Ors., R.P. No. 3800 of 2006, decided on 10.04.2012; vi. Mahyco Seeds Ltd. vs. G. Venkata Subba Reddy & Ors., III (2011) CPJ 99 (NC); vii. Syngenta India Ltd. (earlier Novartis India Ltd.) vs. Velaga Narasimha Rao & Ors., IV (2010) CPJ 119 (NC); viii. Sonekaran Gladioli Growers vs. Babu Ram, II (2005) CPJ 94 (NC); ix. M/s Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd. vs. Hari Kishan & Ors., R.P. No. 403 of 2013, decided on 29.03.2016; x. M/s. Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ram Prakash & Ors., R.P. No. 404 of 2013, decided on 29.03.2016 and xi. Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-operative Ltd. vs. Jagdish, R.P. No. 2143 of 2014, decided on 09.04.2015 6. We have gone through the recent Orders passed by the coordinate Bench of this Commission in Revision Petitions Nos. 403 of 2013 & 404 of 2013, wherein the Revision Petitions were allowed and Complainants were dismissed. It is pertinent to note that in the above Revision Petitions filed by M/s Rashi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., the Complainants - Ram Prakash and Hari Kishan were Respondent no. 1 in the Revision Petitions respectively, who were the Opposite Party No. 3 in the Original Consumer Complaints filed before the District Forum, Firozpur. The coordinate Bench allowed both the Revision Petitions by observing as below: “10. We have gone through the brochure of OP No.2 placed on record. The brochure states that OP No.2 has established its name in northern India because it has the following features: “1. Best ability for every kind of soil and environmental conditions. 2. Less hoeing cost for prevention of weed. 3. Lesser need of irrigation 4. Production of good quality and good cost in the market. 5. Best ability for cotton and wheat crop cycle 6. Easy to keep” It also assures that seeds Rasi 134 are choice of million of farmers because it has : “1. Good height and dispersion 2. Effective prevention from grasshopper boll weevil (Pied, American boll weevil, Pink boll weevil) 3. Maximum yielding power 4. Continuous appearance of Flower, Stalk.” 11. The brochure also give helpful advice for increase of production of rasi boldguard hybrid cotton varieties with regard to inspection of soil and water prior to sowing, preparation of bed of seed, the distance to be maintained, use of fertilizer. It also contains an advice regarding the pesticides to be used for jassid control, white fly control, spodoptra control and for wilt and tirak. Nowhere in the brochure, do we find any mention that seeds were resistant to whitefly infestation and the resultant “Leaf Curl Virus” or any guarantee of minimum yield 12. xxxx 13. There is no cogent evidence on record to show that the complainants took preventive steps to protect the crop from white flies which are the causes of Leaf Curl Virus disease, which obviously was the cause for less yield of the crop. The Fora below have ignored the above aspect of the case and have relied primarily on oral evidence of the respondents/complainants instead of the documents on record. The Fora below have relied primarily on the oral evidence of the respondent complainants instead of documents on record to conclude that the seeds manufactured by OP2 were defective and more susceptible to “Leaf Curl Virus” in comparison to other varieties of seeds. The brochure of OP-2 nowhere states that the seeds are resistant to “Leaf Curl Virus” and the complainants had the choice to purchase other variety of seeds if they were aware that they were resistant to this disease. Hence, we allow the revision petitions, set aside the impugned orders and dismiss the complaints.” (extracts from the Order in R.P. No. 403 of 2013 dated 29.03.2016) 7. On the basis of the foregoing discussion, we don’t differ with the decision of the coordinate Bench of this Commission and set aside the impugned Order of the State Commission. Consequently, the respective Complaints are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. | 
