JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) 1. The complainant in Revision Petition No.387 of 2011 and Revision Petition No.409 of 2011 namely N. Rama Swamy, purchased black gram seeds of T9 variety from Andhra Pradesh State Seeds Development Corporation Limited (for short, the APSSDC) vide cash bill dated 24-06-2006 for a consideration of Rs.4,162/- The said seeds were sown by the complainant in his agricultural land in Jutur Village Pamulapadu Mandal, Kurnool District. 2. The complainant made a representation dated 14-08-2006 to the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Pamulapadu alleging therein that the black gram T9 variety which he had purchased from the APSSDC and sown in his fields had not yielded any flowers and pods within 40 days after the sowing. 3. Pursuant to the representation made by Mr. N. Rama Swamy to the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Pamulapadu, an inspection of his field was carried out by the Mandal Agricultural Officer. Though the report of the inspection was not filed by the complainant, he placed on record the covering letter vide which the Joint Director, Agriculture, Kurnool referred to the aforesaid inspection by the Mandal Agricultural Officer. It was noted by the District Forum from the covering letter of the Joint Director (exhibit A4) that the plant population was 18 to 20 per sq.mtr. and no flowers and pods were there in the field within 40 days after the sowing. This had happened inspite of the farmer having taken all agronomical and plant protection measures. It was also found that in the neighboring land having cultivation of the same variety there was a possibility of yield of 4 - 5 quintal per acre. 4. A perusal of the deposition of Mr. B. Sreenivasa Murthy, Mandal Agricultural Officer before the District Forum confirms the aforesaid report referred in the letter of the Joint Director. The witness inter alia stated that when he visited the field of N. Rama Swamy on 15-08-2006, he found sterile plant of two types, some longer and some shorter. No pods and flowers were found on the plants though they were 40 days old on the date of inspection. He was of the opinion that the said plants would not yield any crop. He also stated that there was no dry spell as per the rain fall data. More importantly he stated that the standing crop in the field of the complainant was not showing the characteristic of T9 variety. During cross-examination of this witness no suggestion was given to him that he had prepared a false report in connivance with the complainant. Though he was duly cross-examined by both the opposite parties no suggestion was given to him that the failure of the crop was due to factors other than sterility in the seeds. No suggestion was given to him that the crop in the field of the complainant did exhibit the characteristic of T9 variety. No suggestion was given to him that the complainant had not taken requisite plant protection measures and had not followed the advised agronomical practices. He clarified in the cross-examination that T9 variety shows characteristic of long leaves, yellow flowers and the height of 6 to 8 inches at the age of 44 days. The witness did not find these characteristics in the crop at the time inspection was carried by him. 5. The complainant in R.P.No.410 of 2011 and R.P. No.388 of 2011 namely, Sale Nagendrudu purchased five bags of black gram seeds of T9 variety and 4 kg of green gram from APSSDC vide cash bill dated 24-06-2006. The aforesaid seeds were sown by him in his fields in Jutur Village of Pamulapadu Mandal of Kurnool District. Alleging failure of the crop, he made the representation to the Mandal Agricultural Officer Pamulapadu on 14-08-2006. The inspection of his filed was carried out by the Seeds Inspector on 15-08-2006. It was reported by him that per square meter of plot population was 18-20 plants and the flowering in the said plants was only upto 5%. He also noted that there had been no dry spell and in the neighboring black gram plots, like LB, B-17, T9 of local varieties the yield was upto 4 to 5 quintal per acre. 6. The District Forum vide its order dated 31-07-2007 allowed the complaint filed by N. Rama Swamy in the following manner: herefore, in the result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties 1, 2 and 3 jointly and severally to pay to the complainant Rs.4,060/- towards the cost of seed purchased under Ex.A1, Rs.22,760/- towards the cost of pesticides and fertilizers purchased under Ex.A7, and the cost expected yield at 5 quintals per acres in proportion to the extent of cultivation of Acs 15-00, at the then, prevailing market rate for that kind. The opposite parties by their conduct has caused mental agony and driven the complainant to the Forum for redressal, the opposite parties 1, 2 and 3 jointly and severally also to pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as cost of this case. Time given to the opposite parties for compliance of the Supra stated Award with joint and several liability, is one month from the receipt of this order. In default the opposite parties shall pay the supra stated award with interest 9% per annum from the date of default till satisfactory realization of the award. 7. Vide its order of even date the District Forum passed the following order in the complaint filed by Sale Nagendrudu: herefore, in the result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties 1, 2 and 3 jointly and severally to pay to the complainant Rs.1,015/- towards the cost of seed purchased under Ex.A1, Rs.6,975/- towards the cost of pesticides and fertilizers purchased under Ex.A7, and the cost expected yield at 5 quintals per acres in proportion to the extent of cultivation of Acs 4.09 cents, at the then, prevailing market rate for that kind. The opposite parties by their conduct has caused mental agony and driven the complainant to the Forum for redressal, the opposite parties 1, 2 and 3 jointly and severally also to pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as cost of this case. Time given to the opposite parties for compliance of the Supra stated Award with joint and several liability, is one month from the receipt of this order. In default the opposite parties shall pay the supra stated award with interest 9% per annum from the date of default till satisfactory realization of the award. 8. Being aggrieved from the orders passed by the District Forum the APSSDC preferred two separate appeals before the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, the State Commission). Vide impugned order dated 17-09-2010, the State Commission dismissed the appeals filed by the APSSDC. 9. Since the order of the District Forum was also directed against the proprietor of Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Seeds, he also had filed two separate appeals. The aforesaid two appeals were also dismissed by the State Commission along with the appeals filed by the APSSDC. Being aggrieved from the dismissal of their appeals the aforesaid Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Seeds and the APSSDC are before us by way of these four separate revision petitions. 10. The learned counsel for the complainant states that since the complainant was not a consumer of the proprietor of Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Seeds, he does not press for any relief against the said opposite party and would have no objection to the revision petitions filed by the said opposite party being allowed. 11. As regards the revision petitions filed by APSSDC, as noted earlier a concurrent finding of fact has been returned by the District Forum and the State Commission, holding that the complainants had purchased T9 variety black gram seeds from APSSDC and the said seeds being sterile had resulted in failure of crop in the fields of the complainants. Both the fora below have accepted the evidence produced by the complainant in this regard. The scope of a revision petition being extremely limited, we will not be justified in interfering with the said concurrent finding of the fact returned by the District Forum and State Commission, unless the said finding is shown as perverse in nature. Considering inter alia that (1) no expert evidence was produced by APSSDC to prove that T9 variety seeds sold by them to the complainant were not sterile or that the same were free from defects, (2) the complainant produced the Mandal Agricultural Officer who carried out inspection on receipt of a representation from the complainant and found that there was flowering to the extent of 5% in the plants, (3) the Mandal Agricultural Officer also found that the crop standing in the fields of the complainant did not have the characteristic of T9 variety, which in turn indicates that the seeds sold to the complainant could be of a variety other than T9 variety though they were sold and purchased as seeds of T9 variety, (4) there was no dry spell considering the weather reports and (5) there was nothing noticed during course of inspection by the Mandal Agricultural Officer to suggest that the farmers had not adopted the requisite agronomical practices and had not taken the required crop protection measures, it cannot be said that the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the fora below could not have been arrived at by any reasonable person, acting on the material available to him. Therefore, the aforesaid finding cannot be said to be perverse in nature. 12. As noted by us while deciding the Revision Petition No.384 of 2011 titled as the District Manager, A.P. State Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Ors. and other connected matters on 24-07-2014, a farmer purchases the seeds only for the purpose of sowing them in his fields and therefore the complainants before this Court, on purchasing black gram seeds which were represented to be of T9 variety, must have sown the said seeds into his fields. This was not the case of the APSSDC before the District Forum or before the State Commission that the seeds which the complainants had sown in their respective fields were different from the seeds which they had purchased from the said corporation. As noted by us it was quite easy for APSSDC to establish the potency and efficacy of the seeds sold to the complainants by getting the seeds of that very lot tested in the laboratory. No such attempt was, however, made by APSSDC. As noted by us in Revision Petition No.384 of 2011 and connected matters, the APSSDC did not invoke the jurisdiction of the District Forum under Section 13(1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which does empower the District Forum to obtain a sample of the goods and get the same tested from an appropriate laboratory. Considering the report of the Mandal Agricultural Officer, it was for the APSSDC to impugn the said report by invoking the jurisdiction of the District Forum under Section 13 (1) (c) of the Act by making a request to the said forum to send the seeds of T9 variety of the relevant lot number, to a laboratory, for the purpose of testing whether the said seeds were sterile or not. That having not been done, we find no reason to interfere with the finding recorded by the District Forum and accepted by the State Commission. 13. For the reasons stated herein above the revision petitions filed by the M/s Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Seeds are hereby allowed and the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission, to the extent, the said fora had directed payment by the petitioner in the aforesaid two revision petitions are set aside. However, the orders of the fora below, to the extent APSSDC has been directed to make payment to the complainants are hereby confirmed. 14. The APSSDC is directed to make payment in terms of the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission within four weeks from today failing which the complainants will be entitled to recover the same through due process of law.