Petitioner, which was the opposite party before the District Forum, has filed the present revision petition against the final judgement and order dated 25.6.2007 passed by Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal No.422/2006 whereby the State Commission, while disposing of the Appeal, modified the order of the District Forum to the extent of payment of compensation at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per acre.

Respondents No.1-3, who are agriculturists, filed complaint No.22/2006 before the District Forum, Gadag, Karnataka (for short ‘the District Forum’) against the petitioner and Respondent No.4 herein.  It was alleged in the complaint that the complainants had purchased Cotton Chamatkar Seeds manufactured detailed as :

It was alleged that as per the directions given in the pamphlets and booklet of the cotton seeds and also explained about the advantages of the seeds and also advised complainants that Mahyco Chamatkar Cotton Seeds are an Indian Hybrid Cotton which can provide good yields.  It had been represented to the complainants that the said seeds were having potential with low inputs and could be grown in all seasons i.e. Rabi and Kharif.  It was also represented that it will give a yield of 10 quintals per acre.  It was alleged that in spite of all efforts the cotton crop did not grow at the expected height and sufficient branches had not grown; that no flowers and cotton balls were grown in the crop; that there was no yield and there was total failure of the crop; that the complainants did not get even a single kg. of cotton from the crop due to which complainants were put to heavy loss.  It was alleged that the respondents had got the crop examined from the Asstt. Director Agriculture; that the Asstt.Director Agriculture, Village Accountant, Village Servant and other officials inspected the crop in the presence of the complainants and gave the following report :

“On 10.2.2005 personally visited the field of above farmer and inspected the crop, the crop was 170 days old and average height of the plant was 6 feet.  On an average each plant was having 1 to 2 bolls.  Apart from this flowers, buds not noticed/average noticed/more numbers noticed.  By considering the above points, it is estimated that there may be a yield of 0.20 quintals per acre.”

        Petitioner, on being served, entered appearance.  It was denied that the seeds were defective.  It was stated that the seeds were duly tested in the quality control laboratory of the petitioner company before marketing and germination and genetic purity results were found to be above 98%.  It was stated that the complaint was not maintainable and no defects in the seeds were proved.

District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed Respondent No.4 to reimburse the cost of the seeds to the complainants within one month from the date of the order.  Petitioner and Respondent No.4 were directed to pay Rs.20,000/-, Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000/- to Respondents No.1, 2 and 3 respectively towards compensation for loss of crop.  Petitioner and Respondent No.4 were also directed to pay special compensation of Rs.2,000/- and court expenses of Rs.1,000/- to each of the Respondent/complainant.  They were also directed to pay Rs.8,000/- to Respondent No.1, Rs.3,000/- to Respondent NO.2 and Rs.5,000/- to Respondent No.3 towards cultivation cost.

Being aggrieved, petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission modified the order of the District Forum and directed the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- per acre to each of the complainant in respect of the lands belonging to the complainants.  In addition, petitioner was directed to refund the amount paid by the complainants towards purchase of the seeds with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of purchase till realization.  Rs.5,000/- were awarded towards cost of cultivation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of proceedings.

        Petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present revision petition.

        Respondents are not present despite service.  Ordered to be proceeded ex parte.

        Initial burden to prove that the seeds were defective was on the complainants.  Except for producing the report of the Asstt.Director Agriculture reproduced above, respondents did not lead any evidence to prove that the seeds supplied to them were defective. A perusal of the report would show that it nowhere states that the seeds supplied were defective.  Variation in condition of the crops is not and cannot be attributed to the quality of the seeds but to some other factors.  Inferior quality of seeds is not a factor for failure of the crops.  The report of the Agriculture Officer does not mention that the seeds supplied were of inferior quality.  There is no evidence whatsoever on record to show that there was any genetic impurity in the seeds supplied by the petitioner.

        Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the respondents have failed to prove their case that the seeds supplied by the petitioner were defective.

        For the reasons stated above, revision petition is allowed.  Orders passed by the fora below are set aside and the complaint is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.