1. The Revision Petition questions the correctness of the orders passed by the Fora below whereby the complaint filed by the Respondent No.1 has been allowed holding that the Petitioner and the 2^nd Respondent were liable to compensate the Complainant/Respondent No.1 for supply of defective seeds of Ghewada (Kewda) plant. The loss recorded was about the crop having a very low flowering rate of 27% on account of such defective seeds that resulted in a heavily reduced harvest.
2. The Respondent No.1/Complainant filed CC/118/2010 alleging that the Complainant, on the suggestion of the Opposite Parties, had purchased 10 packets of 250 grams each comprising of beans of Babli grade at the rate of Rs.130 per packet from the Respondent No.2 dealer, namely Ajit Krishi Kendra, Mohol. The seeds were sown over 1.20 hectares of land by the Complainant and an assurance was given that the said crop would yield a handsome income by the end of the harvesting season. According to the Complainant, due to the poor quality of seeds the flowering of the crop resulted in a deficit harvest as the flowers did not convert into bean pods to give the desired yield. The complainant therefore dissatisfied with the progress of the crop informed the agricultural officer of District Council Solapur requesting him for an inspection followed by another request to the Agriculture Development Officer, Panchayat Committee Barshi to inquire into the same. Accordingly, the District Seeds Complaint Redressal Committee visited the farm of the Complainant and inspected the crop. This Committee consisted of four officials including an expert Professor from Mahatama Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Solapur who opined that even though the development of the crop had commenced comfortably but the flowering could not convert into pods beyond 27% hence there was a substantially reduced production. This report was filed on record before the District Commission and notices were issued to the Petitioner as well as to the 2^nd Respondent.
3. The 2^nd Respondent dealer failed to appear and the Appellant herein also failed to file any written statement before the District Commission in spite of service of notice. Consequently, they were proceeded ex-parte and the District Commission relying on the report aforesaid allowed the complaint for a lump sum loss of Rs.2 lakhs to be paid jointly and severally by the Petitioner and the Respondent No.2.
4. The Respondent No.2 dealer as noted above did not appear before the District Commission and no appeal was filed by it before the State Commission.
5. It was the Petitioner who filed an appeal and the Complainant also preferred an appeal praying for the enhancement of the compensation. Both the appeals were heard together and were dismissed on 30.07.2015 upholding the order of the District Commission.
6. Aggrieved, it is only the Petitioner who has come up questioning the correctness of the impugned orders on the ground that there was no expert evidence doubting the quality of the seeds nor any such opinion was obtained from any laboratory. It is therefore submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the impugned order in so far as the Petitioner is considered is unjustified as there was no proof or evidence of the seeds being substandard or defective. Merely on a local physical inspection by a committee, an inference has been drawn that the seeds were possibly defective. It is urged that this approach is incorrect and contrary to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which obliges the Commission to call upon the parties to lead evidence in this regard. The submission is that the Complainant was not called upon to produce any such evidence with regard to the defect in the seeds and hence the impugned orders as against the Petitioner are unsustainable.
7. It is urged that even if it is assumed that there was some alleged defect, the dealer ought to have been held liable who has even otherwise not chosen to contest the entire dispute and hence the entire liability should have been fixed on the dealer and not on the Appellants.
8. During the course of the arguments, it was inqured from the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as to why they did not choose to file their response before the District Commission or lead evidence, learned Counsel Ms. Pandey responded by inviting the attention of the Bench to Ground No.F  in the grounds of appeal before the State Commission to urge that it was the laywers fault. Ground No.F is extracted hereinunder:

“F) The Ld. Forum ought to have appreciated that, the Applicants herein have provided all the necessary documents to the Advocate to prepare the reply and submit before the Ld. Forum. However the Advocate for the Applicant was failed to do so. It was the Advocate for Applicants mistake, negligence and the Applicant is not liable for the same. In this effect the Applicant herein has written a letter dated 15.02.2013 to Mr. K Chandramohan (Advocate). On this sole ground, it is humble request to this Hon'ble Court to remand back the matter to the Ld. District Forum, Solapur at Solapur and direct to rehear the matter on merit.”

9. The 2^nd Respondent did not appear in spite of service of notice and this Revision Petition proceeded but it was dismissed for want of prosecution on 18.04.2019. Restoration Application MA/201/2019 was filed on which notices were issued and the same was allowed on payment of Rs.15,000/- cost vide order dated 29.11.2019. The Covid intervened thereafter and once again adjournments were sought on behalf of the Petitioner. In between the Respondent No.1 died and notices were sent to the legal heirs that were returned back unserved. The case was again dismissed for non-prosecution on 16.10.2023 but on a Miscellaneous Application MA/619/2023, the order was recalled and the matter was again posted for hearing. This is how the matter reappeared on earlier occasions and has been finally heard.
10. Having heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, we find that firstly the Petitioner failed to file any pleading or evidence before the District Commission and was proceeded ex-parte. In the said background, the contention raised about the absence of an expert evidence cannot be countenanced because the Complainant had led evidence by tendering the report of the Seed Grievance Redressal Committee. The said report also includes an expert of the rank of a professor of a university. In the event the said report was not acceptable to the Petitioner, they could have questioned the same or led any evidence to rebut it but no such attempt was made nor any evidence was adduced even at the appellate stage to contradict the same. Thus, the plea that the seeds were not tested for their defects and there was no expert evidence is a contention which has to be rejected in the absence of any effective resistance by the Petitioner. The report of the Committee cannot be ignored on oral arguments even if the said report could be contested. In the absence of any material to question the correctness of the report, the Petitioner cannot be heard to say that the said report does not amount to an expert report. In our considered opinion that was sufficient evidence which was led before the District Commission by the Complainant and in our opinion has been rightly appreciated by the District Commission to record a finding of deficiency of service.
11. The plea taken by the learned Counsel, that it was the mistake of the Counsel who had been engaged by the Petitioner before the District Commission in not filing the appropriate documents, is an excuse which has been framed without any proof or any support or any affidavit of the concerned Counsel who has been named by the Petitioner. In the absence of any such effort to establish any mistake on the part of the Counsel, the same cannot be a ground to believe the contention on behalf of the Petitioner. Thus, there was complete absence of pleading and evidence on the part of the Petitioner before the District Commission which situation seems to be the same before the State Commission in appeal.
12. Additionally, the dealer vanished from the scene and did not appear either before the District Commission nor did it file any appeal before the State Commission or appear before it in the appeal filed by the Petitioner. Consequently, such non-participation in spite of service of notice of the dealer further establishes that the Complainant had been harassed on account of supply of substandard seeds which ultimately resulted in a substantial loss as noted in the impugned orders founded on the report of the Committee referred to therein.
13. In view of the overall facts and circumstances, there is no error of fact or of law so as to warrant any interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction by this Commission. The Revision Petition lacks merit and is accordingly rejected.