Respondent/complainant purchased Sungro’s cauliflower Aghani seeds from the petitioner and sowed them in his one acre of land.  Respondent spent Rs.10,000/- in sowing the seeds.  Crop were destroyed in spite of due care.  Respondent approached the District Agriculture Officer who, in his report, stated that the seeds were required to be sown in the month of August but were sown in the month of September because of which they did not give proper yield. 

        District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner and Respondent No.2 to pay jointly and severally a compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of crops.  Rs.10,000/- were awarded towards mental harassment and Rs.5,000/- as costs.

        Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed appeal before the State Commission, which has been partly allowed.  State Commission reduced the compensation to Rs.20,000/- from Rs.40,000/-.  Rest of the order of the District Forum has been upheld.

        Not satisfied with the order passed by the State Commission, petitioner filed the present revision petition.

        Notice was issued to the respondent for 20.3.2012.  Petitioner was directed to pay Rs.8,000/- to the respondent/complainant towards litigation expenses.  Notice sent to Respondent No.1 was not received back served or otherwise.  Respondent No.2 was served.  Fresh notice was ordered to be issued to Respondent No.1 for 3.7.2012.  Respondent No.1 was duly served.  Instead of appearing, he sent a communication that the case be decided on the basis of the material present on record.  Respondent refused to accept the litigation expenses of Rs.8,000/-.  Case was adjourned for today.  Office was directed to inform Respondent No.1 about the next date of hearing with a note that in case he does not appear on the next date of hearing, he shall be proceeded ex parte and the revision petition disposed of on the basis of the material present on record.  Petitioner was directed to send the litigation expenses to Respondent No.1 through bank draft drawn in favour of Respondent No.1.  Counsel for the petitioner states that Rs.8,000/- towards litigation expenses have been sent to Respondent No.1 through bank draft.

Respondent No.1 is not present despite service.  Ordered to be proceeded ex parte.

Onus to prove that the crops failed due to defective seeds was on the respondent No.1/complainant, which he failed to prove by leading any cogent evidence.  Respondent had approached the District Agriculture Officer who gave a report that proper germination did not take place as the seeds were meant to be sown in the months of July/August whereas they were sown in the month of September.  No other evidence was led by the respondent.  State Commission in its order has observed as under :

“The perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum reveals that the compensation is awarded to the complainant without any basis and without considering the actual loss suffered by him also and by ignoring the fact that 75% crop was in good condition and only 10-20% crops of cauliflower was not in good condition due to late sowing of the seeds in question.  In this view of the matter I feel that the impugned order is required some modification in the compensation amount of Rs.40,000/- granted to the complainant by the District Forum being on higher side.”

        Finding recorded by the State Commission that since 75% crops were in good condition and only 10-20% of the crops were not in good condition, shows that the seeds supplied were not defective.  Since the respondent has failed to prove any genetic defect in the seeds supplied, the fora below have erred in holding the petitioner deficient in service and directing it to pay the compensation.

        For the reasons stated above, revision petition is accepted.  Order of the fora below are set aside and the complaint is ordered to be dismissed. 

Copy of this order be sent free of cost to Respondent No.1 for his information and necessary action.