PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1.      Counsel for the petitioners heard.  Tukaram Devidas Patil and Pralhad Tukaram Patil are father and son.  They are farmers.  They jointly own agricultural land in village Vaijali Tq. Shahada Dist. Nandurbar.  They had booked the order for supply of seed of Jawar of the variety of “Nirmal 171” for 9 bags and “Nirmal 241” for 8 bags on 01.09.2005 through the Nirmal Seeds Company-Respondent/OP1 and paid an advance of Rs. 1700/- towards the cost of  the said seeds.  They were assured that the said seeds would be sown in their land and would receive good quality yield.  However, inspite of repeated demand, the said seeds were not supplied to the complainants.  It also transpired that the persons, who had ordered for supply of seeds subsequently, got the seeds before them.  The complainants never received the seeds.  Consequently, they filed a complaint before the District Forum and claimed Rs. 1700/- given as advance  Rs. 1,75,000/- as   the  amount  for  expected   production,       

Rs. 30,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs. 10,000/- towards costs of case.

2.      The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the seed company to pay Rs. 2,16,700/- as total compensation. It was ordered that if the compensation was not paid till 09.01.2007, the complainants will be entitled to recover the said amount of    Rs. 2,17,700/- with interest @ 12% per annum from 01.09.2005 till realization of the entire amount. 

3.      Aggrieved by that order, the OPs filed an appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission modified the order and directed that the OPs would refund the amount of Rs. 1700/- with interest @ 9% from 01.09.2005 till the date of payment.   They were also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs. 2,000/- as costs of the complaint. 

4.      In this revision petition, we have heard the counsel for the petitioners.  He submits that the costs of the expected crop should also be granted and the amount modified by the State Commission is on the lower side. 

5.      We are unable to concur with the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioners.  The State Commission has properly perused the record and passed the appropriate order.  The petitioners should not have waited for the supply of seeds.  When the time was going to elapse, they should have taken the seeds from elsewhere.  There is no evidence on the record that they did not sow any seeds in their land. This is a consumer case which cannot be equated with the game of Russian Roulette.  No merits.  Dismissed.