Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member 1. Both these appeals are disposed of by this common order since they involve identical facts and arise from common order passed by the forum below. 2. Appellant M/s.Ajit Seeds Ltd. is a manufacturer of padi seeds of variety ‘Ajit Trupti’. Respondents in both the matters namely Ganpat Bajirao Gaikwad in A/490/2010 and Mahadeo Sakharam Kadam in A/491/2010 had purchased 12 kgs of above referred seeds for Rs.456/- from appellant no.2- M/s.Shetkari Sheti Seva Kendra, Kuditre respectively on 01/01/2008 and 24/1/2008. The seeds purchased, as alleged, were sown by them immediately after their respective purchases. These seeds were expected to ripe for harvesting within 125-130 days giving output of 70 to 90 quintal per acre. However, even after 4-5 months of their sowing, they failed to give desired results. Therefore, these appellants Ganpat and Mahadeo made their respective complaints to ‘Zilha Biyane Takrar Nivaran Samiti’ (‘The Committee’ in short). The committee visited their respective fields. Thereafter, these consumer complaints were filed alleging that because of defective seeds their crop gone waste and they had suffered loss as well as mental torture and agony. 3. Forum below after hearing both the sides uphold the grievance of respective complainants and directed O.Ps i.e. appellants in both the appeals to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/-, further compensation towards mental torture at Rs.5000/- and Rs.1000/- as costs. Feeling aggrieved thereby original O.Ps preferred these appeals. 4. Heard Mr.R.Patil-Advocate for the appellants and Mr.Vijay Mahajan-Advocate for respondents. Perused the material placed before us in both the appeals. 5. Looking to the 7/12 extract of the crop pattern in their respective fields, it is not clear as to whether padi cultivation is in the area of respective complainants and whether they are cultivators of the said crop. There is only general entry amongst several owners of the land that the cultivation was personally done by those owners (jointly since only one ‘khud’ appears) and total area under the respective crop was mentioned. 6. It is the case of both the complainants that after purchase of the seeds they had sown it in their respective fields after taking all due care and cultivated said crop properly. However, even after 4-5 months the crop did not ripe for harvesting though condition of the crop was reported healthy and, thus, alleging that because of the delayed harvesting, they will not get expected profit from the standing padi crop and they will further miss the next ‘kharip hangam’, they made complaint to ‘Zilha Biyane Takrar Nivaran Samiti’, which visited their respective fields. In their report the Committee have endorsed the good condition of the crop but made merely reference after recording opinion of the respective cultivators that said crop was expected for harvesting within 125-130 days and has not reached for the same, but did not record their own finding. Their report for that purpose and even the affidavit of Secretary of the said committee, did not reflect that any independent enquiry, much less comparative enquiry as contemplated in government instructions contained in circular dated 27/3/1992 were carried out and followed by said committee while giving a report. They neither visited the dealer nor did seized/taken any sample of the seed from the lot nor visited the fields in the neighborhood where same seed was sown nor independently made enquiry as to whether the seed which was purchased was expected to ripe for harvesting within 125-130 days or not. Therefore, said committee report looses its probative evidentiary value and is not of much help to either of the complainants. Affidavit filed on behalf of appellant /O.P. of cultivator, who testified that he used the seed from the same batch and got good crop, it is not contravened by other cultivator who had sown pady seeds from the same batch. The other affidavits who claimed to have seen cultivation and standing crop in the fields of complainants is mere on observation and they are not expert on the subject to opine quality of the seed sown. Forum below wrongly placed burden on the appellant/O.P.no.1 to get the seeds testified under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred as “Act” for brevity) and inference drawn consequent to it would not stand in the eyes of law. Undoubtedly, the burden is on the respective complainants to prove that the seeds were defective and which is not discharged by them. Consequently, complainants fail to establish their respective claims. Forum below committed an error while appreciating the material placed before it. Hence, we hold accordingly and pass the following order:- ORDER 1. Both the appeals are allowed. 2. Impugned order dated 31/3/2010 is set aside and in the result consumer complaint nos.403/2008 & 404/2008 stands dismissed. 3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. | 
