HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. P. SAHI, PRESIDENT

1.       These two revision petitions arise out of two Orders, which are identical in nature in respect of identical claims raised in both the revision petitions.

2.       The dispute, in short, is that the respondents - complainants, who are farmers, separately purchased 10 kgs. of cowpea seeds each of the variety KBC-2 from the revisionist. One of the respondents – complainants owns two acres of land and the other 2.5 acres, and it is alleged by them that the seeds were purchased on a promise by the revisionist that the same would yield 10 quintals per acre of cowpea on adopting standard methods of farming.  Their contention was that they purchased the seeds and cultivated their land whereafter the seeds were sown as per prescription but after the plants sprouted, they failed to bear any flowers or seeds and they withered after two and a half months of sowing, as a result whereof, they suffered immense loss due to defective supply of seeds that were flawed and substandard. Accordingly, on the prospective yield of 10 quintals per acre, one complainant claimed a loss of 20 quintals of cowpea at the rate of Rs. 6000/- per quintal, resulting in a monetary estimated loss of Rs. 1,20,000/- and the other farmer claimed a similar loss of 25 quintals as the area was 2.5 acres, resulting in a loss of Rs. 1,50,000/-.  The complainants alleged that they had informed the officials and the inspection was carried out by the Assistant Director of Agriculture on 12.07.2012 when it was advised that the plants should be pinched, which was also done but with no results. It is also submitted that a team of experts from the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore also visited and inspected the site on 01.08.2012 but neither the revisionist nor its officials or experts were able to provide any aid to improve upon the crop which miserably failed and withered resulting in a huge loss to the respondents - complainants.

3.       The assessment was made by the Assistant Director of Agriculture on 24.08.2012 and a report was submitted indicating that a yield of only 20% of was assessed and that there was some defect that resulted in such a low yield.

4.       The revisionist took a plea that during inspections, it was found that the crop was infested with pests and that the farmers failed to treat the crop with appropriate pesticides and in respect of the other claim, a plea was taken that the seeds had been sown in a field which had a high level of moisture. The defence, therefore, was taken that lack of treatment of pests by using appropriate pesticides and the existence of high level of moisture resulted in this loss, which cannot be attributed to the quality of seeds.

5.       The District Forum examined the entire material on record and relied on the report of the Assistant Director of Agriculture dated 24.08.2012 to conclude that there was an yield of 20% and, therefore, the claim of 100% loss was reduced to 80% and proportionate compensation was awarded accordingly.

6.       On the issue of expert opinion, the revisionist stated that the team of experts that had visited on 01.08.2012, indicated different reasons that were not attributable to the quality of seeds. In this regard, neither the report of the said team appears to have been produced to contradict the claim of the complainants nor the scientists, who are stated to have prepared the report were examined or produced before the District Forum to meet and contradict the case set up by the complainants. It is, thus, evident that the report of the Assistant Director of Agriculture dated 24.08.2012 was the only evidence on the basis whereof the District Commission appears to have rightly come to the conclusion about the extent of loss and the deficiency in service as alleged in the complaint. The flawed and sub-standard seeds that were supplied led to failure of the crop and in the absence of any material to the contrary to conclude that there was any negligence on the part of the farmers in raising of the crops, the judgment of the District Commission appears to be justified.

7.       Learned counsel for the revisionist could not justify the stand taken and once it is established that the report of the expert scientist that visited on 01.08.2013, on which reliance is placed by the revisionist, the same having not been filed or any defence led any relation thereto before the District Forum, the same cannot be entertained at this stage to reverse the finding of the District Forum. Even otherwise the same does not indicate any attempt to get the quality of seeds tested that was in dispute. The report narrates improper crop management leading to subsequent weed growth and crowding of plants as well as lacking in pesticides management. Over and above there is no assessment of the extent of loss in yield due to such factors.

8.       The revisionist went in first appeal before the State Commission but their appeals were dismissed in default on 16.06.2022 recording that in spite of sufficient opportunities, no arguments were addressed on behalf of the appellants.  It appears that review petitions were also filed and since no ground for review was made out, the review petitions were also dismissed on 21.11.2022 against which the present revision petitions have been filed.

9.       We have discussed the correctness of the District Commission’s judgment and on the basis of material that was there on record at that level, we find that the revisionists have failed to dislodge the said findings. Accordingly, both the revision petitions lack merit and are dismissed.