This order shall dispose of the above-captioned six Revision Petitions.  As the facts and the law point involved is the same, they are being disposed of by the common order.  We are taking the facts from Revision Petition No.2364/2007. 

          Respondents, in spite of service, have not put in appearance.   Ordered to be proceeded ex parte.

          Complainants in all these Revision Petitions filed separate complaints before the District Forum alleging that they had purchased cotton seeds from Shantala Agro Sales – the dealer/Respondent No.2 herein, which had been produced by the petitioner.  That they had sown the seeds as per directions issued by the petitioner but did not get the expected the yield.  That they got their field inspected by the Assistant Agricultural Officer, who in his report stated that the yield was not as expected from the crop raised by the respondent/complainant.  Alleging that the seeds supplied were defective, respondent/complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum disposed of the complaints by passing the following common order dated 30.8.2006 in 5 complaints bearing Nos.40, 41, 54, 55 and 94 of 2006 :

“All the 5 complaints are partially allowed.  Respondent Mahyco Company has to pay compensation as shown below as seed cost, cultivation cost, fertilizer cost and special compensation cost and court expenses to the respective complainants within one month.

1.                Amount payable in Complaint No.40/06

i) Cost of 5 pkts. Seeds Rs.  2150.00

ii) Fertilizer cost Rs.  1325.00

iii) Cultivation cost Rs.15000.00

iv) Mental Strain Rs.  5000.00

v) Court expenses Rs.  2000.00

Total Rs.25475.001

2. Amount payable in Complaint No.41/06

i) Cost of 16 pkts. Seeds Rs.  6880.00

ii) Cultivation expenses Rs.24000.00

iii) Mental Strain Rs.  5000.00

iv) Court expenses Rs.  2000.00

Total Rs.37880.00

3. Amount payable in Complaint No.54/06

i) Cost of 1pkt. Seeds Rs.     450.00

ii) Cultivation expenses Rs.   1400.00

iii) Special Compensation Rs.  3000.00

iv) Court expenses Rs.  2000.00

Total Rs.  6850.00

4. Amount payable in Complaint No.55/06

i) Cost of 2 pkts. Seeds Rs.    900.00

ii) Cultivation expenses Rs.  2800.00

iii) Special Compensation Rs.  3000.00

iv) Court expenses Rs.  2000.00

Total Rs.  8700.00

5. Amount payable in Complaint No.54/06

i) Cost of 1pkt. Seeds Rs.     420.00

ii) Cultivation expenses Rs.   3000.00

iii) Special Compensation Rs.  2000.00

iv) Court expenses Rs.  1000.00

Total Rs.  6420.00

          Complaint No.90/2006 was disposed of by a separate order on the same date in similar terms.

          Aggrieved against the orders passed by the District Forum, petitioner filed common appeal against all the orders of the District Forum.  State Commission endorsed the view taken by the District Forum.

          Not being satisfied with the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner has filed separate Revision Petitions against the common order of the State Commission. 

          Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the onus to prove that the seeds were defective was on the complainants which they have failed to prove by leading expert evidence; that there was no report of the Asst. Agricultural Officer in Revision Petitions No.2364 to 2367 of 2007.  That the report of the Asst. Agricultural Officer in Revision Petition No. 2368 and 2369 of 2007 is completely silent on the quality of seeds supplied.  That there is no evidence on record to show that the seeds supplied were defective. 

          It has been authoritatively held by Supreme Court of India as well as by this Commission that the onus to prove the defect is on the person who alleges it.  Reference was made to the judgment of Supreme Court in Haryana Seeds Development Corporation ltd. vs. Sadhu & Anr., (2005) 3 SCC 198 as well as to the order passed by this Commission in Maharashtra hybrid Seeds Co. ltd. and Ors. vs. Ajay Singh & Anr. in Revision Petition 252 of 2009 of this Commission, in which it has been held that onus to prove that the seeds supplied were defective was on the complainants and in case the complainants fail to discharge that onus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          With the help of learned counsel for the petitioner, we have gone through the orders passed by the State Commission as well as the District Forum and the evidence led by the parties. 

In Revision Petitions No.2364 to 2367 of 2007 there is no report of the Asst. Agricultural Officer. 

The report of the Asstt. Agricultural Officer in Revision Petitions No.2368 and 2369 of 2007 reads as under:

                    “Report in R.P.2368/2007

Shri Basavaraja Shivappa Byadagi, Village Hole Alur has cultivated Chamatkar Cotton Crop for 15 acres during the year 2004-05 in his own land (Sy.No.44/1, 45/1-4 and 29), in each plant there are only 2-4 bolls and hence there is a difficult situation of getting very less yield.”

Report in R.P.2369/2007 - (Complaint No.90/2006)

Farmer Name : Vadakaraddi Dasappa Kalakatti

Village : Hirekoppa Sy.No.253 Area : 6 acres

On 14.2.2005, personally visited the field of above farmer and inspected the crop, the crop was 175 days old and average height of the plant was 5 feet.  On an average each plant was having 2 to 3 bolls.  Apart from this flowers, buds not noticed/average noticed/more numbers noticed.  By considering the above points, it is estimated that there may be a yield of 0.30 quintals per acre.”

          Since there were more than one complainant in Complaint No.90/2006, from which R.P. No.2369/2007 arises, the Asstt. Agricultural Officers have given their reports on the similar lines as reproduced above.

A perusal of the reports shows that the Asst. Agricultural officer in his report has nowhere stated that the seeds were defective.  The onus to prove that the seeds supplied were defective was on the complainants, which they have failed to discharge.  In the absence of any evidence that the seeds supplied were defective, the fora below have erred in allowing the complaints filed by the respondents relying upon the report of the Asstt. Agricultural officer.  Fora below have misread the report given by the Asst. Agricultural Officer. 

          For the reasons stated above, the Revision Petitions are allowed.  Orders passed by the fora below are set aside and the complaints are ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.