Respondents did not put in appearance in spite of service earlier.  Fresh notices were issued on 26.3.2010. AD cards have been received showing that the respondents have been duly served.  Respondents are not present despite service.  Ordered to be  proceeded ex-parte.

Petitioner was the opposite party No.2 before the District Forum. 

Kallappa, Shivappa and Shankaragowda filed three separate complaints before the District Forum alleging that they had purchased cotton seeds from M/s Mahesh Traders (respondent No.4 herein), which were produced by the petitioner.  That they had sowed the cotton seeds as per directions issued by the petitioner but did not get the expected yield.  That they got their field inspected by Asst. Agricultural Officer, who in his report stated that the yield was not as expected from the crop raised by the respondent.  Alleging that the seeds supplied were defective, complainants filed three separate complaints before the District Forum. 

The District Forum disposed them of by passing a common order dated 23.9.2005.  District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner as under :

“The complaint is partially admitted.  The complainant Nos.1 and 2 is liable to pay to complainant 62/2005 and 63/2005 their seed cost and Rs.10,000/- towards crop loss with 12% interest from the date of complaint and Rs.5000/- towards cultivation cost and Rs.2000/- towards court expenses.  For complainant 79/2005, the opponent 1 and 2 are liable to pay seed cost, Rs.15,000/- towards crop loss and Rs.5000/- towards cultivation cost and interest at 12% from the date of complaint and Rs.2000/- towards court expenses.”

          Aggrieved against the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner filed a common appeal against all the three complainants The State Commission endorsed the view taken by the District Forum.  Not being satisfied with the order passed by the State Commission, petitioner has filed common revision petition against all the complainants who have been arrayed as respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.  Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the onus to prove that the seeds were defective was on the respondents/ complainants which they have failed to prove by leading the expert evidence.  That the report of the Asst. Agriculture Officer is completely silent on the quality of the seeds supplied.  That there is no finding in the report submitted by the Asst. Agricultural Officer to the effect that the seeds supplied were defective.  That there is no other evidence to prove that the seeds supplied were defective.  It has been authoritatively held by Supreme Court of India as well as by this Commission in a number of judgments that onus to prove that the seeds supplied were defective is on the person who alleges it. Reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sadhu and Anr. II (2005) CPJ 13 (SC) as well as to the order passed by this Commission in Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co.Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Ajay Singh and Anr. in RP/252/2009 of this Commission, in which it has been held  that onus to prove that the seeds supplied were defective was on the respondents/complainants and in case respondents fail to discharge that onus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

With the help of learned counsel for the petitioner, we have gone through the orders passed by the State Commission as well as the District Forum and the evidence led by the parties. Three reports submitted by Asst. Agricultural Officer, which are identical,  are to the following effect :-

“I personally visited the farmers plot on 7.2.2005 and inspected the crop, the crop is 162 days old and plants are 5 ft.  height.  We found that on an average each plant was having only 2-3 matured bolls.  Apart from this, the plant was having few buds and flowers.  With the above fact, we estimate that there may be yield of around 30 kgs”

Perusal of the same would show that the Agricultural Officer in his report has nowhere stated that the seeds supplied were defective.  As stated above, onus was on the complainants, which they have failed to discharge.  In the absence of any evidence that the seeds supplied were defective, the fora below have erred in allowing the complainants filed by the respondents relying upon the report of the Agricultural Officer.  Fora below have misread the report given by the Agriculture Officer.  There is no evidence on record to show that the seeds supplied were defective. 

For the reasons stated above, the revision petition is accepted. Orders passed by the fora below are set aside and the complaint is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.