JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 23.11.09 passed by the Maharasthra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in first appeal no. 1716/05. By the impugned order, the State Commission has partly allowed the appeal filed by the original complainant against the order dated 14.07.05 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nanded in complaint case no. 538/03 by which the District Forum had partly allowed the complaint of the complainant and had directed the opposite party no. 2 (petitioner herein) to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for the defect in the soyabeen seeds which the complainant had purchased from the opposite party No.2 (petitioner) for a sum of Rs.9,450/- and which could germinate only upto the extent of 18% as against the normal germination to the extent of 70%. The State Commission while partly allowing the appeal of the complainant, has enhanced the compensation from Rs.15,000/- to the tune of Rs.45,000/-. 2. We have heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner and considered his submissions. He seeks to assail the findings of the fora below in regard to the defects in the seeds sold by the petitioner, primarily on the ground that the said findings are not based on correct and proper appreciation of the evidence and the material produced on record. In any case, his submission is that no cogent evidence was produced on record by obtaining a report about the testing of the sample of the seeds from any scientific Laboratory as required u/s 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In that connection, he also placed reliance upon the two decisions of the State Commissions, one rendered by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the other by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. In this regard, we may simply observe that the said decisions were rendered by those Commissions on the facts and circumstances of those cases which are not similar to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Here in the case in hand, once having realized that the soyabeen seeds purchased by the complainant from the petitioner did not give the expected germination, the Complainant approached the concerned Agricultural Development Officer, District Nanded to appoint a committee of several members to look into his grievance and to submit the report. The Committee considered the question after making personal visit to the spot and hearing the say of both sides and came to the conclusion that the average germination in the field of the complainant was only 18% as against the average germination of 70%. Both the fora below relied and acted upon the said report and held that there was defect/deficiency in the seeds which were responsible for the scant germination. Since the Complainant had sown the entire quantity of seeds purchased by him from the petitioner he could not have possibly sent a sample of the seeds to any said Laboratory for testing within the meaning of Section 13 (1) (c) of the Act. On the contrary, if the petitioner thought that the allegation of the complainant in regard to defect in the seeds was unfounded he could have sent the sample of the seeds from the same lot to a laboratory in order to show that there was no defect in the seeds which can be attributed to the low germination of the seeds. The Committee appointed by the District Agricultural Development Officer had taken all relevant factors into consideration and found that what was necessary in order to make proper germination of the seeds was maintained and still the germination was much less than the desired level. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to assail this report on any cogent premise. In our view, the concurrent finding of facts of the fora below is not liable to be upset in the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission. In any case, the finding of the District Forum holding defect in the seeds has became final, the petitioner having not filed any appeal against the said order. It was only the complainant who dis-satisfied with the amount of compensation filed appeal before the State Commission. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner then argued that the State Commission has erred in enhancing the amount of compensation. In our view this submission too has no merit and is liable to be rejected because having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and the consequential loss which the complainant must have suffered due to insufficient germination of seeds and then in the yield of crop, the compensation so awarded by the State Commission does not appear to be excessive or harsh. 4. In the result, we see no merit in the present revision petition and it is dismissed accordingly.