Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd., the petitioner herein, was the opposite party before the District Forum.

          As per allegations made in the complaint, the complainant/respondent had sown 50 Kg. of moong seeds of K-851 variety purchased from the petitioner for Rs.1,750/- in 56 kanals of land taken on lease.  According to the respondent, he had sown the seeds and used the fertilizers as per instructions issued by the petitioner.  However, after the expiry of 70 days, the respondent found that except 2% of the crop, the remaining crop did not give any fruit.  Respondent approached the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal, whose officials inspected the fields and submitted the report dated 17.7.2006 that there was complete pod formation in 20% plants which had already matured and the remaining 80% plants were having pod formation on the top of the plants which was the result of untimely excess rainfall in Indri area in the months of May, June and July due to which the crop has gained more vegetative growth.  Thus, alleging supply of defective seeds, the respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking a direction to the petitioner to pay Rs.1,40,000/- along with interest at the rate of 24% and Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony and costs of Rs.5,000/-.

          Stand taken by the petitioner was that as per inspection report, there was no defect in the seeds supplied to the respondent and the pod formation was due to climatic factors, i.e., untimely excess rainfall in Indri area in the months of May, June and July, for which petitioner could not be held liable.

          The District Forum, ignoring the defence taken by the petitioner, partly allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.50,000/- to the respondent on account of the loss suffered due to defective seeds within 30 days failing which interest at the rate of 10% shall be payable from the date of order till realization.

          Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by holding that it was incumbent on the petitioner to get the seeds of the same batch number and variety tested from any lab, which the petitioner failed to do and consequently the petitioner was guilty of deficiency in service. 

          Petitioner, being aggrieved has filed the present Revision Petition.

          Counsel for the parties have been heard.

          The initial onus to prove that the seeds supplied were defective was on the respondent.  The respondent had approached the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal, who appointed a Committee to inspect the fields.  The Committee, after inspection, gave its report on 17.7.2006.  It was concluded as under :

“The committee was clearly of the opinion that there was no fault in the seeds supplied to the complainant rather it was due to the climatic factor i.e. untimely frequent rain fall as shown above in para no.2 and due to the lat sown of the crop.”

          As per this report, the seeds supplied by the petitioner to the respondent were not defective.  The pod formation was due to climatic factors, i.e., untimely excess rainfall in Indri area in the months of May, June and July 2006.  Petitioner could be held liable for deficiency only if the seeds supplied by the petitioner to the respondent were defective.  Since in the present case, the seeds were not found to be defective, the petitioner could not be held liable guilty of deficiency in service.  Fora below have wrongly held the petitioner to be deficient in service.

          For the reasons stated above, the Revision Petition is allowed.  Orders passed by the fora below are set aside and the complaint is ordered to be dismissed.  No costs.