PER JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER These revisions arise out of a common order passed by the State Commission and as such the revisions were heard together and are being disposed by common order. The case of the complainants is that they had purchased packets of ejaswinihybrid chilli seeds produced by OP No. 1 and sold by Dealer OP No.2. (The parties are being referred as recorded in the complaints). According to the Complainants, OP No. 1 had issued several advertisements in respect of hybrid variety chilli seeds under brand name ejaswinirepresenting that the said chilli seed were infest/pest resistant and it yields 35 to 40 quintals per acre. It is further stated that OP No.1 gave morphological and genetic characteristics of the seed wherein it was represented that the crop would come into 50% flowering stage by 45 to 48 days, the fruits would be in pendent position and the plants would grow to a height of 4 feet. The complainants submitted that they took all necessary precautions for cultivation of the chilli crop and invested huge amount for the purpose of nursery, transplantation and cultivation etc. The crop did not come to 50% flowering stage within 45 to 48 days and the fruits were not in pendant position. However, even after expiry of 70 days there was no flowering in about 90% of the crop and the entire crop was still in vegetable phase. The complainants had made written representation to OP 3 Joint Director of Agriculture, Guntur who appointed a five-members team including a scientist. The said team visited the village on 12.1.2006 and inspected the fields of all the farmers who had raised ejaswinichilli crop. The said team submitted its report to the Joint Director of Agriculture who issued proceedings dated 30.10.2006 in which it was stated that the crop had been severally infested with hripsand the crop was at different stages and the fruits were in semi erect position. In the said proceedings it was also noticed that there were deviations observed between the characters given by the Company as well as inspection report given by the team and the farmers were advised to file complaint before the District Forum. According to the complainants, the seeds in question were of sub-standard quality resulting in considerable loss for which compensation has been claimed. The chart indicating case number, name of the farmer, extent of land cultivated and amount of compensation claimed is recorded in the judgement of the District Forum and as such it is not necessary to repeat the same. The District Forum ordered payment of compensation @Rs.75,000/- per acre besides Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation. The details of compensation awarded is recorded in the order of the District forum. The OP No. 1 & 2 were jointly and severally held to be liable for the payment of the said amounts which was to carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization besides cost of Rs.1,000/- to each complainant. This order was challenged by OP No. 1 & 2 before the State Commission. The State Commission concurred with the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal. This order is subject matter of challenge in these revisions. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner/OP No. 1 & 2 has submitted before us that no defect has been attributed to the seeds in the proceedings dated 30.10.2006 of the Joint Director of Agriculture which is based upon the findings of the Committee; that the orders of the Fora below are the result of misreading of proceedings dated 30.11.2006 of the Joint Director of Agriculture which are at pages 103-104 of the revision; that the complainants have failed to prove that they had adopted required cultivation practices; that the complainants had not produced anything to indicate whether pesticides had been purchased and used to control the infestation of hrips that OP No. 1 did not at any time represent that ejaswinivariety of chilli seed was resistant to infest/pest and it yields 35 to 40 quintals per acre. It is also pointed out that the seeds were not sent for testing/analysis in the laboratory under Section 13 (1) (c) nor the complainant sought any direction from the District Forum to direct OP No. 1 to send sample seeds of the same batch for testing under the said provisions. According to the Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the onus to prove that the seeds in question were defective as a result of which the complainants suffered loss is upon the complainants who have failed to prove the said fact and simply because crop failed would not be sufficient to grant compensation. In this connection reliance has been placed on the judgement of this Commission in Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Ajay Singh & Anr. (R.P. No. 252 of 2009 and connected revisions decided on 15.9.2009. He also placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Sadhu and Anr. II (2005) CPJ 13 (SC) and Mahyco Seeds Company Ltd. Vs. Basappa Channappa Mooki and Ors. Civil Appeal No. (s) 2428 of 2008 decided by the Apex Court on 21.7.2010 in support of which submissions that the variation in condition of crop was not and cannot be attributed to quality of seeds but to other factors. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Complainants/Respondents submitted that there are concurrent findings of two Fora below which are supported by reasons and as such, the same do not call for interference in the exercise of revisional powers. According to the Ld. Counsel for the Complainants, the version of the OP relating to adverse climatic conditions has been disbelieved and it has been duly established that the deficiencies, which were noticed by the team, appointed by the Joint Director of Agriculture were on account of defective seeds. He also pointed out that the District Forum has held that there was no admixture problem. He further submitted that reasons have been given by the District Forum for grant of compensation, which does not call for interference. According to the Ld. Counsel for the complainant, the case of the complainant is covered under para 18 of the judgement of this Commission in Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (I) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Bodduluri Jeevan Kumar & Anr. (2009) III CPJ 379 (NC). He also relied upon other judgements of this Commission and the Apex Court. The case of the complainants basically rests upon the averments that the Complainants had purchased ejaswinihybrid chilli seeds on the representations in several advertisements that the said seeds were infest/pest resistant and it yields 35 to 40 quintals per acre. This statement of the complainants is specifically denied by the OP No.1 in written version. The Complainants have produced literature of hybrid chilli seed ejaswiniwhich neither supports the version of the Complainant that the seeds were infest/pest resistant or it yields 35 to 40 quintals per acre. The said literature refers to practices for high yield per acre and the quantity of fertilizers etc. to be used. It also provides for sucking pest control including hrips In hripsspray 30 ml. Rogor (in early stage) or Metasystox 30-40 ml. (or) Regent 20 ml./tank. The literature also provides for disease control and fruit borer control. There is nothing on record to show whether the practices as recommended in the said literature were adopted by the Complainants. The complainants basically relied upon report of the team constituted by the Joint Director of Agriculture and proceedings dated 30.10.2006. The team consisted of : . Asstt. Director of Agriculture (Trg.), O/o Joint Director of Agriculture, Guntur. 2. Scientist (Horticulture) RARS, Lam, Guntur 3. Horticulture Officer, Narasaraopet 4. Mandal Agril. Officer, Nadendla 5. Asstt. Director of Agriculture (Regular) Narasaraopet The report of the proceedings dated 30.10.2006 of the Joint Director of Agriculture) reads as under: fter inspection the above team has submitted the inspection report to this office through the reference (3rd) cited. As seen from the inspection report it is known that the crops have been severally infested with thrips, the crop is at different stages and the fruits so far formed are in semi erect position. As per the character furnished by the Seed Producer the following observations have been found in respect of the Chilly Hybrid Tejaswani. Characteristics As given by the Seed Producer Deviations observed by the inspections committee during field inspection 1. The crop will come to 50% Flowering stage by 45 to 48 days Only 30% of the crop has come to following stage by 60 to 70 days. The remaining crop is in vegetative phase.2. Fruits will be in pendent position. All the Fruits formed in Semi erect to erect position. In the reference 4th cited, M/s. Mahyco Vegetable Seeds LTd. (Seed Producer) was addressed to inspect the fields and redress the grievances of the complainant farmers before 27.10.2006. But the company did not turned up by the stipulated date. In view of the deviations observed between the characters given by the company as well as the inspection report given by the special team the complainant farmers may be advised to file complaint in the district consumers from under consumer protection Act for getting compensation for the crop loss from the seed producer besides filling complainants against the seed dealer/producer besides filing complainants against the seed dealer/producer under Section 420 of CRPC The above proceedings show that the inspection report had mentioned that the crops had been severally infested with thrips, the crop was at different stages and the fruits so far formed were in semi erect position. The proceedings then referred to deviations observed by the inspection team during field inspection and Characteristics given by the seed producer. However, what was the cause of the deviations was nowhere disclosed, nor the said proceedings attribute that the said deviations were on account of quality of the seed. On the contrary, it was noted that the crops were severally infested with thrips, the crop was at different stages and the fruits so far formed were in semi erect position. This would go to show that the complainants had not taken any steps or measures to control the infestation of thrips to which the chilli plants were prone and for the control of which instructions are found in the literature. There is also nothing on record to show that the Complainants had followed the practices as advised in the said literature. We are in agreement with the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the Fora below has misread the said proceedings dated 30.10.2006 of the Joint Director of Agriculture. The District Forum had noticed that the report of the team did not give any source or cause of occurrence or spread of disease. The District Forum then stated that in such circumstances, one cannot draw an inference that the seeds supplied by the OP were of good quality and due to failure of farmers in adopting cultivation methods the crop failed or vice versa. The District Forum also noticed that the Complainants did not produce vouchers, bills, or receipts for having used fertilizers and insecticides to get proper yield and in the absence of the same there was possibility of drawing an adverse inference. The District Forum came to the conclusion that failure of crop is equally due to supply of defective seeds in question and non-user of adequate and proper fertilizers and insecticides as there was no positive evidence for the same and partly due to agro-environmental conditions. It also noticed that there was deficiency of service on the part of the OP in not attending the fields and inspecting the same and guiding the farmers property. In this Connection, the District Forum failed to take into account affidavit filed on behalf of the OP. In our opinion, there is no material on record on the basis of which it can be concluded that the failure of the crop was due to supply of defective seeds. The seeds were never sent for analysis/testing in accordance with Section 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act. Even if the Complainant had exhausted all the seeds, a request could be made to the District Forum to give directions to the OP to produce samples of the same batch for the purpose of testing in the laboratory. The onus to prove that the seeds are defective is certainly on the Complainant. In fact, OP No. 1 even sought appointment of a Commission for inspection of the fields but it appears that the Complainants were not interested for such inspection. The State Commission also fell in error in misreading the proceedings dated 30.10.2006 of the Joint Director of Agriculture. The conclusion of the State Commission that it cannot be said that there is no nexus between the infestation of thrips or loss of crop and poor yield with the quality of seeds is not based on any material on record. This conclusion is based on the assumption that in absence of any documentary evidence filed on behalf of the appellants that thrips is caused only due to poor climatic conditions or improper crop management practices by the farmers, the propensity of infestation has nexus with the quality of seeds. We find it difficult to accept the conclusion arrived at by the State Commission that there is a nexus between the infestation of thrips or loss of crop and poor yield with the quality of seeds. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the Complainants have failed to establish that there was any defect in the quality of the seeds or the seeds were of sub-standard quality. The crops were affected by thrips and in order to contain the same, the Complainants did not adopt the practices recommended in the literature. In view of the above, the revisions are allowed and the orders of Fora below are set aside. In the facts and circumstances we leave the parties to bear their costs.