Aggrieved by order dated 17.1.2007, passed by Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission petitioners/opposite parties no.3 and 4 have filed this petition. 2. Brief facts are that respondent no.1/complainant an agriculturist owns land and had purchased two packet of 450 grams on 17.7.2004, one packet of 450 grams on 26.7.2004 and three packets of 450 grams each on 30.7.2004 of Ajeet 11 cotton seed from respondent no.2/op no.1. He also purchased 8 packets of 450 grams on 12.6.2004 from respondent no.3/op no.2. The seeds purchased from them have been manufactured and supplied by petitioner/op no.3. It is alleged by respondent no.1 that he has sown all 14 packets in his land, which is a fertile land suitable for cotton cultivation and has all the facilities and fertility for proper growth of cotton. The crop started flowering at the age of 50 to 60 days. It has formed in the cotton bolls but the bolls were not opened, as a result respondent no.1 could not realize the cotton kapes. Thus, he was put to loss of expected yield of 20 quintals per acre, besides agricultural inputs and expenses worth Rs.1,50,000/-. The said crop loss was inspected by Mandal Agricultural Officer, Pamulapadu who submitted his report to Joint Director, Agriculture Kurnool. Thereafter, respondent no.1 approached the District Forum for appropriate relief. 3. Petitioners in their reply have stated that at no time, respondent no.1 ever complained of loss of yield during the relevant season. Further, no value to the so called inspection by Mandal Agricultural Officer can be given since it was done after the season. 4. District Forum, vide its order dated 31.1.2006, dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent no.1 preferred an appeal before the State Commission, which allowed the appeal and directed the petitioners to pay Rs.50,000/- alongwith costs of Rs.2,000/-5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that seeds were sown in the month of July, 2004. Thus, the crop period was over by middle of January, 2005. Respondent no.1, intentionally wrote letter to the Joint Director of Agriculture, after the crop period was over so as to have the wrongful gain. Learned counsel also submitted that the crop yield depends upon various factors like climatic condition, managerial practices, and diseases etc. Moreover, defect in the seed could be found only by testing the same in appropriate laboratory. In support, learned counsel for petitioners has relied upon a decision of this Commission, Sonekaran Gladioli Growers Vs. Babu Ram, II (2005) CPJ 94 (NC). 6. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for respondent no.1, that there was loss of crop due to the supply of defective seeds which was brought to the notice of the agricultural department. The department after inspection, has given its report stating that standard crop is still having matured bolls and loss cannot be assessed. 7. There is no evidence on record to show that the seeds supplied by the petitioners to respondent no.1 were defective. Even report of Mandal Agricultural Officer does not state about this fact that seeds in question were defective. On the other hand, Mandal Agricultural Officer in its report states; ccordingly, I have inspected the field on 28-2-2005 alongwith Asstt. Director of Agriculture (R) Atmakur. As per the inspection of the field it is observed that the farmer has taken pickings from the standing crop and as per the information of the farmer, he has taken 3 to 4 Qtls. of Kapas from AZEET-11 variety and 2 to 3 Qtls. from Supriya variety. The standing crop is still having matured bolls, opened bolls and flowering to some extent. As per the statement of the farmer it is suspicious about the yield whether it is per acre or for the entire field. No where he has no mentioned he has taken 3 to 4 Qtls. or more as per the stand of the crop, and also so as per the ref.3rd cited the licencing authority i.e. Joint Director of Agriculture Kurnool also informed that this complaint is not come under M.O.U. Hence, I request that the farmer may please be approached legally with relevant documents to get the compensation. 8. As per above report, it is nowhere stated that the seeds were defective nor any reason has been given with regard to the delay in maturity of the crop. It is well settled that delay in maturity of the crop can be due to various reasons and circumstances, such as climatic conditions, no proper watering and not taking proper care of the crop. District Forum in this regard has observed ; 1. In absence of any clear material or report as to the defective quality of seed supplied to the complainant, the non standardness in the quality of seed remains not proved and the Honle National Commission in Sone Keran Gladioli Growers V/s Babu Ram reported in II (2005) CPJ 94 (NC) upheld the dismissal of the complaint by the Forum setting aside the order of the State Commission which reversed the Forum order in appeal. Hence in inspiration of the above said decision of the Honle National Commission, in the circumstances of the non- availability of any material as to the defect in seed supplied to the complainant, the reason for alleged total loss cannot be attributed to the seed said to have been supplied by the opposite parties and thereby for holding any of the opposite parties liability to the claim of the complainant. 9. In Sonekaran Gladioli Growers (supra), this Commission has held; In none of the reports bought on the record and in the deposition as well as the cross examination of Mr. S.P.S. Rana, nowhere it stated that the quality of bulb was bad. In view of the absence of any clear finding, commenting upon the quality of the bulb supplied, we are unable to sustain the finding returned by the State Commission fastening the liability on the petitioner just because the heights of the plants remained short. On an unsupported or unproven basis no inference can be drawn against the petitioner for supplying any poor quality of material. The deficiency in such case cannot be assumed, it needs to be proved. In the present instance, the complainant has failed to prove as none of the expert reports on record supports the claim of non-standard quality of seed. 10. Under these circumstances, we find that the impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable and same is hereby set aside. The revision filed by the petitioners stands allowed. Consequently, the complaint filed by respondent no.1 stands dismissed. 11. No order as to costs.