By this common order, we shall dispose of both the revision petitions since the facts and point of law involved in them are the same.  Facts are being taken from revision petition No.4164/2009.

-2-

          Petitioner/complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum with the allegation that he had purchased hybrid jawar seeds from Gopal Krishi Sewa Kendra which were manufactured by             Mahabeej Seeds Corporation Ltd., respondent no.1 herein.  Petitioner sowed the seeds in the land.  There was less germination of the seeds resulting in loss to the complainant. 

          District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that the Onus to prove that the seeds were defective on the petitioner, which he failed to discharged by leading any cogent evidence.

          Petitioner not satisfied by the order passed by the District Forum, filed the appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned order by observing thus:

“We heard arguments of both sides and perused the record.  It has on record that as the complainants had complaint about defectiveness of the seeds to the Seeds Grievance Committee, Zilla Parishad Committee inspected the land Committee in its report gave opinion that germination in the field is less due to defective seeds or method of sowing.  Thereafter seeds were sent to Government Laboratory for testing by Committee itself.  Report of Government Laboratory conclude that seeds

-3-

are certified and of standard quality.  Though the field position shows less germination but the test report mentions that seeds are certified.  In this situation inference can be drawn that cause of less germination depends on kind of soil, irrigation system, weather etc.  It is natural that growth of crop many times affected by natural things.  It has also come on record that Mrs. Aruna Jadav who happens to the family member of complainant is an agriculture expert.  Even evidence in the form of affidavit of said expert is not produced by the complainant to show that seeds are defective.  Report of Seeds grievance committee was ambiguous but report of Government Laboratory clearly mentioned that seeds are certified and of standard quality.  Appellants could not prove the defectiveness of seeds, when defectiveness of seeds is attributable to other factors complaint is not sustainable against seed company.  In the light of this situation we have no reason to discard finding recorded by District Forum.  Hence we are dismissing the appeals.

          We agree with the view taken by the fora below that the onus to prove defect in the seeds was on the petitioner, which he failed to discharge by producing any evidence.  Evidence is to the contrary.  As per report of Government Laboratory, the seeds were not defective.   There was nothing wrong with the seeds supplied.  The

-4-

finding recorded by the fora below is a finding of fact, which cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

Under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in Revisional jurisdiction this Commission can interfere only if the State Commission exercises jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.  We do not find that there has been any material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction on either of accounts mentioned in Section 21 of the Act.  Dismissed.