Complainant/respondent no.1 purchased 16 packets of “Raj Laxmi” and two packets of Sona mustard seeds from the petitioner/opposite party no.1 on 10.10.2009 and sown them in the land owned by him.  Raj Laxmi seeds did not germinate twice.  Sona seeds germinated.  Respondent approached the Assistant Agricultural Officer who visited the spot and gave his report.  Respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum alleging that he had spent Rs.96,000/- for preparing his land for sowing the mustard crop and suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- due to non-sprouting of the seeds. 

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.2,52,400/- to the complainant towards the loss of the crop, Rs.20,000/- towards harassment and Rs.1100/- towards costs. 

-3-

Petitioner being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission concurred with the findings recorded by the District Forum and concluded that the petitioner had sold the seeds after the expiry date.  Relevant findings of the State Commission read as under:

“It is not disputed that the opposite party no.1 is the dealer and the opposite party no.2 is the producer of the seeds.  Annexure C-11 is the writing of the opposite party no.1 which was given to the complainant at the time of his visit in the fields of the complainant and when the complainant was given 16 packets of “Raj Laxmi” seed on dated 24.10.2009.  Thus, it is established on the record that the opposite party no.1 had sole the mustard seeds to the complainant which was the product of the opposite party no.2.  Report Annexure C-14 of A.A.O. Shri Dahula Ram Saini dated 29.11.2010 which has been supported with the affidavit Annexure C-13 and other affidavits Annexure C-3 of Yad Ram and Ex.C7 of Ex.Panch Kirorimal who were the witnesses to the inspection site by the A.A.O.  It has come on the recod that the site was duly inspected by Agriculture Officer Shri Dhaula Ram Saini on 29.10.2009 in presence of Yad Ram and Ex-Panch Kirorimal who reported that the seed did not sprout as the seeds were dead.  It has

-4-

come on the record that outer Annexure C-8 of “Raj Laxmi” mustard seed packet did not bear, different necessary particulars such as lable number, kind, variety, date of manufacturing, date of packing, the period of validity etc. the outer Annexure C-8 showed that it was of a lot of September 2007 and was to be used within a period of nine months.  In other words, the seeds were to be used by June, 2008 but the same was sold to the complainant by the opposite party no.1 on 10.10.2009.  Meaning thereby, the seeds sold to the complainant was the expiry date.  Thus, it has been abundantly established on the record that the opposite parties had supplied inferior quality of mustard seeds to the complainant with expiry date.  Complainant has led cogent and convincing evidence with respect to the ownership of his land and that of his brother where the seeds were sown by him.”

          We agree with the view taken by the fora below.  Finding recorded by the State Commission is a finding based on evidence which cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in revisional jurisdiction this Commission can interfere only if the State Commission exercises jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a

-5-

jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.  We do not find any such material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction on either of accounts mentioned in Section 21 of the Act.  Petitioner is guilty of deficiency in service as they had sold the seeds after the expiry date.  No ground for interference is made out.  Dismissed.