Petitioner/complainant purchased cabbage seeds from the opposite parties on 21.2.2006 and 18.3.2006 and cultivated the same in his fields.  As there was no growth of the cabbage till 75 days, the petitioner approached the District Seeds Complaint Redressal Committee (hereinafter referred to as the DSCRC for short).  The DSCRC gave the report that the seeds were defective.  Petitioner lodged a complaint against the respondents.  According to the petitioner, the respondents assured to compensate the complainant, which they did not do.  Being aggrieved, petitioner filed a complaint seeking compensation of Rs.2 lakh. 

District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondents to pay Rs.2 lakh by way of compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs.

Respondents, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has set aside the order passed by the District Forum.  Complaint has been ordered to be dismissed.  State Commission, in it order, noted that the DSCRC did not get the seeds tested from anywhere.  Simply because the brochure published by the respondent company was defective, did not mean that that the seeds manufactured by the respondents would be held to be per se defective.

Counsel for the petitioner has been heard.  We have gone through the report submitted by the DSCRC.  Findings of the DSCRC are as under :

“Cabbage crop were used by Shri Nivrutti Baburao Ghorpade and Sunil Ratnappa Kasar R/ o Dattawad, Taluka Shirol, have been cultivated by Cent Seeds produce by the Seminij Vegetable Seeds Company.  Shri Ghorpade took more than 70 days for re-plantation.  Also, Shri Kasar took more than 45 days for re-plantation.  As per information provided by the production company it is expected Cabbage growth within 60 to 65 days.  But no Cabbage stack to the crops.  As well as no satisfactory growth of crop in the land of Shri Kasar.  May be it caused by high temperature in the atmosphere.  It has not mentioned in the booklet of the company about seeds, therefore it shows that there is defect in the seeds.”

It would be seen from the perusal of the findings that the DSCRC did not record a categorical finding that the seeds supplied by the respondent to the petitioner were defective.  Only reason given is that perhaps the seeds did not germinate because of the high temperature in the atmosphere, which was not mentioned in the booklet of the company.  There is no finding recorded by the DSCRC that there was high temperature prevalent at that time.  Admittedly, initial onus to prove that the seeds were defective was on the petitioner which it has failed to discharge.  The report of the DSCRC, on which strong reliance has been placed by the District Forum and by the learned counsel for the petitioner, does not prove that the seeds were defective.

We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  Dismissed.