These revisions arise out of common order dated 27.5.2009 passed by the State Commission in various appeals. Accordingly the revisions were heard altogether at the admission stage. Delay in filing the revisions which is not much is condoned.

          Learned counsel for the petitioners was heard in all the revisions. He submitted before me that the fora below have not considered the Seeds & Analysis Report of PHI Seeds Ltd.; that in terms of Section 2 (i) (f) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 defect would mean any fault, imperfection or shortcomings in the quality, quantity, potentiality, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time in force. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the said standards are required to be maintained under the Seeds Act, 1966 and the Seeds Rules 1968. In this connection my attention has been drawn to Section 6 of the Seeds Act, 1966 which deals with power to specify minimum limits of germination and purity etc. and Rule-6 of the said Rules which deals with functions of certification agency. It has also been pointed out that in order to award compensation for loss or injury suffered by the consumer negligence has to be proved against the opposite party in terms of Section 14 (i) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon certain rulings, which are strictly not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.

The revisions are directed against concurrent findings of two fora below. The findings of fora below are based upon report of the Senior Scientist, who had inspected the fields in question where the seeds were sown. According to the complainants, the normal yield per acre should be 10 quintals but the yield was poor and it was only 2 quintals per acre. Complainants had therefore filed complaints for compensation. The report of the Senior Scientist is as follows: -

“The team inspected all the plots of the above said hybrid crop in 50 acres of Sri Venkateswara Reddy, Sri D. Maheswara Reddy, Sri Raghunatha Reddy, Sri G. Venkata Ramana Reddy and Sri Shankar Reddy of A. Gokulapadu, Sunkanna andYanadi Reddy of Bastipadu.

The team after thorough inspection came to a conclusion that:

Though the hybrid is genetically pure, it is lacking hybrid vigour which leads to poor yields i.e. on a average 2 p/acre whereas other hybrids grown in nearby the plots of pioneer hybrid on the same date under similar agronomical packages yields on an average of 6 q/acre. Hence, it is suggested that reasonable compensation for the loss incurred by the farmers may be extended.”

          The above report shows that seeds lacked hybrid vigour which lead to poor quality yield. Interrogatories were served by the opposite parties on Mandal Agricultural Officer, who has stated that morphological features and genetical features were seen on the date of inspection and the hybrid vigour depends upon the quality of seeds and the defect is only because of lack of hybrid vigour in the seed. The Senior Scientist has assessed the loss to the complainants @ 4 quintal per acre in view of the fact that in neighbouring fields the yield was 6 quintal per acre and accordingly compensation has been awarded @ 2,000/- per quintal.

Section 2 (i) (f) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 defines ‘defect’ and the factors to be taken into consideration are quality, quantity, potency, purity and standard as required to be maintained under the Seeds Act. The fact that the seeds lacked hybrid vigour which lead to poor quality yield shows that the potency of the seeds was not up to the standards. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the fora below have not taken into consideration Seeds & Analysis Report of PHI Seeds Ltd. which is not correct since the State Commission has taken into account the defence of the present petitioners wherein it was stated that the lab report lot No.74-218 has physical purity of 98.7% and genetic purity at 96%. Besides, this report is self-serving report of the petitioners itself. The petitioners could have sent the sample for testing for the purpose of determining hybrid vigour on the basis of which Senior Scientist had come to the conclusion that poor yield was attributable to the said factor. The complainant who purchased seeds utilised all the seeds for sowing and did not keep any sample for forwarding the same to the laboratory under Section 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In this connection the Apex Court in M/s. Mahindra Hybrid Seeds Co. vs. Alavalapati Chandra Reddy & Ors. III (1998) CPJ 8 (SC) has stated that complainant has sown all the seeds purchased by them and they would not be in a position to send the seeds for analysis, but the opposite parties have not chosen to file any application for sending the seeds to any laboratory. The same view was taken by this Commission in National Seeds Corporation Ltd. vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy 2004 CPJ 122 (NC) wherein it was observed that a farmer is not expected to conserve certain portion of seeds and therefore cannot produce these seeds from somewhere to get them tested to meet the requirements of Section 13 (1) (c).  The report of the Senior Scientist from Agricultural Department has been rightly relied upon by the Fora below. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in these revisions as I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders of Fora below. The revisions are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

          Fifty percent amount which is already deposited, as per statement made by learned counsel for the petitioners on 13.1.2010, shall be paid to the complainants or the same be sent to the District Forum concerned for payment to the complainants. The complainants would be entitled to withdraw whatever amount has been deposited by the petitioner in the District Forum to the extent to which it is required to be paid towards satisfaction of the award.