The Andhra Pradesh Seeds Development Cooperation (herein after referred to as APSSDC) has filed these seven revision petitions against common order of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in seven appeals. The matter arose out of alleged failure of gingili (Sesme) crop in several villages of Viziangraram District, Andhra Pradesh in crop-season kharif 2004. The State Commission has disposed of all seven appeals through a common order on the ground that they involved similar issues for decision. For the same reason, these seven revision petitions before us are taken up for consideration and decision through this common order. These proceedings involve claims of 256 farmers arising from failure of the same crop, raised from the seed procured from the same source, in the same crop year and in the same district. Brief facts are that all these farmers had sown gingili crop in 2004 for which the seed was purchased from the revision petitioner/APSSDC. Allegedly, these farmers were assured that the yield could be expected to be higher than 5 quintals per acre. The farmers invested their money not only in seeds but also in fertilizer, pesticides etc. for this crop. On farmers’ complaints, the agriculture department conducted fieled inspections and found that while the vegetative growth of the crop was as high as 5 feet, flowering and pod formation was low, which led to poor yields. The District Forum awarded Rs.2000/- per acre for the loss of yield and compensation of Rs. 1000/- per acre together with costs of Rs.2000/- for each farmer. The State Commission has dismissed the appeals of the APSSDC and upheld the order of the District Forum. We have carefully perused the records and heard Mr. P. Prabhakar, Advocate for APSSDC and Mr. Ch. Leela Sarveswar, Advocate for respondent /Complainant. The revision petition has been filed with delay of 90 days. This delay is condoned on consideration of the explanation given in the application for condonation. In the revision petition, it has been alleged that the complaints were filed after a lapse of six years and therefore should have been dismissed on the ground of limitation itself. It is argued that the District Forum should not have condoned the delay merely by awarding cost in favour of the OPs. This needs to be seen in the background of the fact that in these cases the department of agriculture itself had determined the quantum of compensation payable to the concerned farmers. Their award was challenged by the revision petitioner/OP in an appeal before the Director of Agriculture and later in revision before the Secretary to Government, Department of Agriculture. Subsequently, OPs filed a civil suit in OS NO.181 of 2006 in a City Civil Court, Hyderabad, challenging the authority of Department of Agriculture to award compensation. In this context, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant explained that in view of the award of compensation by the Department of Agriculture, there was no occasion to invoke the jurisdiction of the District Forum. It was only after the decision of the Civil Court- which held that the Department of Agriculture had no authority to determine the quantum of compensation- that the consumer complaint could be filed. In this background, we are of the view that there was sufficient justification to condone the delay. The District Forum was right in not dismissing the complaints on the ground of limitation. The revision petition also contends that the fora below should have dismissed the complaint as the crop growth was admittedly up to five feet. This belies logic. Nobody sows branded seed to raise a cereal, pulse or oilseed crop for harvesting vegetative growth. These crops are raised for their yield in grain or oil seed or pulse, as the case may be. Interestingly, it is also contended that “variation in the condition of the crop may not be due to the quality of seed but it may be due to other factors including water quality used for irrigation, long dry spell and slat accumulation.” In this behalf, the State Commission has noted that the District Forum had also taken into consideration an earlier technical Committee report which was filed on behalf of the OPs. Based on this report, the OPs had claimed that crop loss was on account of unsuitable environmental conditions and due to biotic and abiotic stress. This claim of the OPs has been rejected by the State Commission, observing that “It is pertinent to note that Ex. B1 has been filed by the opposite party with respect to the Technical report on gingili crop in Vizianagarm Dist. But there is nothing on record to state that the crop of the complainant herein has also been visited and inspected. However, the report did admit that in some fields the flowering is very less. We may state herein that except taking a plea that the complainant did not follow proper crop management practices, there is no record to substantiate the said fact. We may state that the opposite parties did not file any document in order to prove that the seed was not defective by filing laboratory test reports etc. obtained before releasing seeds into open market, and that the complainants did not sustain any loss.” Even before this Commission, neither the revision petition nor the counsel for the petitioner could travel beyond making a bland statement on possibilities. On the question of seed or adopted crop practices, no reference is made to any evidence which was led on behalf of the APSSDC and was either ignored or misconstrued by the fora below. In the light of the details examined above, we arrive at an inescapable conclusion that the revision petitioner has failed to make out any case against the impugned order. The revision petitions are consequently dismissed for want of merit. | 
