JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) 1. The case of the complainant, Shri Devi Dutt is that he had purchased two types of paddy seed for a sum of Rs.7100/- from opposite party-National Seed Corp. Ltd. Thereafter, the complainant sowed the paddy seed as per the instructions of the dealer. The main grievance of the complainant is that paddy plants did not give any fruit. The seeds given by the opposite party to the extent of Rs.1100/-, were only defective. 2. The District Forum allowed the complaint filed by the complainant and granted a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of the complainant. Aggrieved by that order, the opposite party preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission placed reliance upon the report submitted by the Central Soil Salinity Security Research Institute, Karnal. The said report runs as follows:- “As per the monitoring team, the field was affected by Bakane disease. Since the farmer had not treated the seed at the time of sowing and there is prevalence of this disease in the adjoining fields, it is suggested that proper seed treatment is ensured in the next season for preventing this sort of problem. It is further reported that there is no mixture of seed in the field.” The buck stop here. The fault, if any, cannot be attributed on the part of the respondent/opposite party. The petitioner should have treated the seed at the time of sowing and due to that reason the Bakane disease spread in the crop of the complainant from the adjoining fields, where disease was already present. No steps were taken to prevent the spreading of Bakane disease. It is clear that due to the negligence of the complainant, the crops could not be grown. Again, there is no evidence under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Samples of the goods were never sent to the appropriate laboratory. It is clear that the complainant has made much ado about nothing. 3. All these facts take the edge off complainant’s criticism. His case falls flat and revision petition deserves dismissal which we hereby direct. Since this is a case of poor farmer, therefore, we are refraining from imposing costs for the wastage of the precious time of this Commission. | 
