PER JUSTICE R.C. JAIN (ORAL)

          Aggrieved by the order dated 26^th of February, 2010 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad in First Appeal No. 132 of 2007, the original opposite party no. 2, A.P. State Seeds Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-Corporation for reference) has filed this petition in order to invoke supervisory jurisdiction of this Commission. 

2.       The consumer dispute raised before the District Forum was with regard to the poor quality of paddy seeds, which the complainant had purchased at a price of Rs.7100/- from the petitioner-Corporation and which on being sown and grown but the yield of the crop so grown did not turn out to the expectation of the complainant or in conformity with the assurance given by the petitioner-Corporation.  The complainant claimed a total compensation of Rs.6,60,000/-.  By an order dated 27^th of July, 2006 the District Forum had dismissed the complaint holding that the complainant had failed to establish his case in regard to the defect in the seeds purchased by him.  However, in appeal the State Commission going by a certain report of Senior Scientist, Andhra Pradesh Rice Research Institute, which was rendered in some other case, has partly allowed the claim and directed the petitioner-Corporation to refund Rs.7100/- being the price of the seeds and also awarded a compensation of Rs.70000/- in favour of the complainant although the State Commission itself has made certain observations in the penultimate paragraph which will show that the State Commission itself was not convinced about the case of the complainant having been established on record.

3.       We have heard the counsel for the parties and have considered their submissions.  Mrs. Radha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation, submits that the impugned order is not based on correct and proper appreciation of the pleadings of the parties and evidence and material brought on record.  She further submits that it was for the complainant to establish his case by producing some expert evidence in regard to the defect in the seeds purchased by him rather than seeking appointment of an advocate commissioner or relying upon a certain report rendered by a scientist in some other case, which could not have been applied to the facts of the present case.  We find merits in her submissions because the question as to whether the seeds sold by the petitioner-Corporation were of standard quality or suffered from certain defects due to which there was low yield of crop was for the complainant to establish.  Ideally, going by the provisions of the Seeds Act, 1966, if the complainant considered that the seeds sold to him were defective, he should have utilized the services of one of the seeds testing laboratory established in various parts of the country.  Not only that this was not resorted to but the complainant even failed to seek the assistance and support from the District Agriculture Officer who if seized would have perhaps thrown some light on the question as to whether the low yield was on account of any defect in the seeds or some other reason.  In our view, the District Forum was right in dismissing the complaint on the ground that the complainant had failed to establish his case.  The State Commission itself in the penultimate paragraph of the impugned order observed that “The Complainant has not established that he had applied fertilizers and pesticides at appropriate time as also that he had taken proper precautions in raising the crop.  The poor quality of the seed itself may not be the sole reason for the poor yield.  The complainant has not produced any evidence to the effect that he had sustained such quantity of yield loss.”  Despite returning this finding, we do not know for what reason the State Commission has directed the petitioner-Corporation to refund the price of the seeds with compensation of Rs.70,000/-.  The order passed by the State Commission cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside.

4.       In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside.  As a consequence, the complaint shall be deemed to have been dismissed.  Parties shall bear their own costs throughout.  On request of Mrs. Radha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation, we permit the petitioner-Corporation to withdraw the amount, if any, deposited in this Commission.