JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) 1. The case of the complainant, Shri Laxman Singh is that he purchased mustard seeds from M/s Dinesh Kumar Hitesh Kumar, opposite party No. 2 and Firm M/s Manish Agro Biotech Pvt. Ltd., opposite party No. 3 on 12.10.2010. It transpired that the said seeds were defective as the said seeds did not germinate to the prescribed standard. The complainant filed a complaint against all the opposite parties claiming a sum of Rs.90,000/- before the District Forum. The -3- District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant as compensation. He also allowed litigation expenses in the sum of Rs.1100/-. However, the State Commission accepted the appeal filed by opposite party No.1-M/s Super Seeds Pvt. Limited. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the reasoning given by the District Forum is correct. The District Forum placed reliance on the report dated 21.10.2010 issued by the Deputy Director. The report sent to the Dy. Director reads as follows. “To The Deputy Director Agriculture Rewari Subject: Regarding germination of mustard seed at the field of Laxman S/o Sh. Budh Ram, V. Bharawas. On the above said complaint, the farmer’s field was visited by Dr. V. K. Yadav, Sr. Extension Specialist (Agro), KVK Bawal and Sh. Nihal Singh SMS (Agron) Rewari on 21.10.10. It was observed that the germination of mustard in the field was about 20%. It -4- was also observed that the seed was placed in the moist zone. The probable reason for poor germination may apparently be: i. Increase in the depth of seeding by sliding upper dry soil due to comparatively narrower row spacing. ii. Poor quality of seed. However, the seed was not available with the farmer and hence you were requested on the same day to draw the seed sample from the concerned dealer/retailer.” 3. The State Commission rejected the report issued by the Deputy Director on the ground that the same was not prepared as per the directions issued by the State Commission on 3.1.2002, which require that one representative of the Haryana State Seeds Certification Agency apart from one scientist from recognized university were to be associated but in this case nothing of the sort was done by the concerned Deputy Director and his team. Again, the report was not signed by any independent witness. The State Commission also came to the conclusion that growth of the seeds is dependent upon the nature of soil, water quality, irrigation, sowing method, moisture contents at the time of sowing of crop and application of proper quantity of fertilizers. It -5- is also interesting to note that even the District Forum came to the conclusion that no other farmer had reported that his seeds were defective. The complainant, only, came with that grievance. Had the seeds been defective, so many farmers would have made a complaint against it. 4. The report of the Deputy Director is vague and evasive. It does not give the antecedents of the land which was inspected by the above said persons. Seeds were not sent for testing. The report submitted by the office of Deputy Director carries exiguous value. 5. The State Commission relied upon the judgment in Ramesh Chandra Agrawal Vs. Regency Hospital Ltd. & Ors. 2010 (1) CPC 1 wherein it was held that the scientific opinion evidence, if intelligible, convincing and tested becomes a factor and often an important factor for consideration along with other evidence of the case. The Apex court further held that the credibility of such a witness depends on the reasons stated in support of his conclusions and the data and material furnished which form the basis of his conclusion. 6. We are of the opinion that the fault lies with the Deputy Director of the area. He did not perform his duty well. It was his duty to get the -6- seeds scientifically examined. He could have seized other seeds available in the shop of the opposite parties and would have sent for laboratory report. He should have compared this field alongwith the fields of other farmers, who bought the seeds from the opposite parties. We find no merits in this revision petition, therefore, the same is dismissed. | 
