By this order, we shall dispose of Revision Petition Nos.  252, 253 and 254 of 2009 since the point and law of question involved in these petitions is the same.

          Petitioner was opposite party before the District Forum.

Respondents/complainants in all these revision petitions filed complaints before the District Forum against the petitioner for supplying defective seeds thereby causing loss of crops to the respondents.  They had purchased the cotton seeds from the petitioner on the understanding mentioned in the brochure that the seeds were free from insecticide.  However, on seeds having been sown the expressed guarantee of free from insecticide did not have effective results.  District Forum by the impugned order allowed the complaints and directed the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,600/- with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of foiling of the complaint and costs of Rs.500/-.  District Forum relying upon thereport of Senior Agriculture Development Officer, Development Block Ranapur Jhabua.

-3-

          Aggrieved against the order passed by the District Forum, petitioner filed separate appeals before the State Commission in each of the complaints.  State Commission partly allowed the appeals.  Amount of compensation was reduced and petitioner was directed to pay the same within six weeks with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of passing of the order. 

          Being aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, present revision petitions have been filed.

          We have gone through the impugned orders, the complaint as well as the report of the Senior Agriculture Development Officer.   Admittedly, petitioner did not produce any expert evidence.  The only so-called expert evidence was the report of the Senior Agriculture Development Officer, Jhabua dated 24.1.2003.  State Commission from this report concluded as under:

         “Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the appellants were apprised about the defects of the seeds/their effects.  The appellant did not take steps to compensate the complainants.  Even a report of the agricultural extension officer was submitted to the effect that the entire  crop had become useless on account of the defective seeds.  It was stated that 70% loss has occurred to the agriculturist.”

-4-

          The report of Senior Agriculture Development Officer reads as under:

          “It is certified that farmer Shri Naharsingh son of Dalia Bhilala resident of village Hattipura has sown the cotton research B.T. (Bolguard), this cotton crop started dying in the first week of November 2002, gradually entire crop got dried up, Agriculturist has given water to the crop also, Department had not suggested to sow this variety of cotton, agriculturist himself purchased the seeds from private seller and sown the seeds, as per agriculturist presently he got just 240 kg. per bigha crop, farmer had sown cotton in one acre field, as compared to common and hybrid variety cotton farmer has suffered loss of about 70 to 75%.  This certificate is given on the demand of farmer.”

          A perusal of the same would show that the Senior Agriculture Development Officer in his report has nowhere stated that the seeds supplied were defective.  The Onus to prove that the seeds were defective was on the complainants/respondents which they have failed to discharge.  Foras below have erred in allowing                          the complaints filed by the respondents relying upon the report of the

-5-

Senior Agricultural Development Officer.  Foras below have misread the report filed by the Senior Agriculture Development Officer.  There is no other evidence to show that the seeds supplied were defective. 

            For the reasons stated above, orders passed by the foras below are set aside and the revision petitions are allowed.  Complaints are ordered to be dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.