containing 20 gms of Minza seeds of Papai were made available to respondent no.1. Thus, total 51 gms of Papai seeds were again planted at the end of October,2002 in 2700 bags. However, again only two out of 2700 polythene bags had germination of seeds. 3. Respondent no.1 again approached Petitioner and respondent no.2, but they avoided to visit his field. Hence, on 03.10.2003 he made a complaint to the Agricultural Development Officer, Dhule, the Chairman of ist. Seed Committee In response to his application, Agricultural Development Officer, Dhule, fixed the date of 15.01.2003 for inspection and intimated him. On 15.01.2003, Agricultural Development Officer along with the members of the Dist. Seed Committee visited his field. The Taluka Agricultural Officer, representative of Petitioner, respondent no.2 and complainant himself were present. During their joint inspection it was revealed that the germination of the said seeds was very poor. 4. The Agricultural Development Officer, vide his letter dated 30.01.2003, sent Seed Committee report in which it was clearly mentioned that the seeds provided by respondent no.2 and as produced by petitioner are defective and having hard shell are not capable of germination. Respondent no.1 has thus alleged that petitioner and respondent no.2 have committed deficiency in service. Respondent no.1 therefore claimed Rs.17,10,000/- as compensation, Rs.14,500/- for mental agony and Rs.500/- towards cost of notice with interest @ 18 % p.a. 5. Petitioner and respondent no.2 filed separate written statements. They have admitted that respondent no.1 has purchased Z-86 variety of papai seeds of 5 packets each containing 10 gms on 13.08.2002 but denied other allegations. It is alleged that when respondent no.1 had made the complaint regarding poor germination of the seeds, petitioner had sent its representative for spot inspection on 29.10.2002. After having inspected the spot, the said representative submitted that there was germination of 1400 plants of papai. However for satisfying respondent no.1, the said representative supplied him 3 packets of Z-86 papai seeds weighing 30 gams and 1 packet of Minza variety of papai seeds. In addition, two packets containing total 20 gms of said seeds were supplied to the complainant free of cost. 6. It is further alleged that Seed Committee report is false and illegal, therefore it cannot be accepted. It is also further alleged that the concerned Agricultural Officer who is Chairman of the Seed committee, was given one sealed packet containing 5 gms of the same variety of the seeds of the same lot, vide letter dated 28.03.2003 and was requested to send the same to the laboratory for testing. However, he failed to do that. It is also alleged that representative of the petitioner company. Shri. Prakash Pandhari Surse who was present at a time of spot inspection of the seed company on 15.01.2003 had requested Chairman of the Seeds Committee to arrange for the soil testing from the polythene bags. Since no steps were taken by the Chairman of the Committee, petitioner itself sent the soil for testing to the oil testing officerat Pune, which gave its report on 03.03.2003. As per the report, the soil which was used by the respondent no.1 in polythene bags for preparation of the sapling was found to be harmful for germination of the seeds. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint is false and baseless. 7. District Consumer Redressal Forum, Dhule (for short, istrict Forum, vide order dated 22.3.2006 partly allowed the complaint and passed the following directions; ) The opponent no.1 is hereby directed to pay amount of Rs.2,28,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand only) to the complainant, within one month from the receipt of this order. 3) The opponent no.1 is hereby directed to pay amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand ) to the complainant within one month from the receipt of this order. 4) The complaint against the Opponent no.2 is hereby rejected. 5) If the opponent no.1 fails to pay the aforesaid amounts within the stipulated period he will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 7% per annum to the complainant. 8 Petitioner being aggrieved by the order of District Forum, filed an appeal before the State Commission for dismissal of the complaint whereas respondent

2

no.1 filed appeal for enhancement of the award amount. 9. State Commission, vide its impugned order dismissed both appeals. 10. In this revision, petitioner alone has challenged the impugned order. 11. I have heard the Learned counsel for petitioner and gone through the record. 12. It is contended by learned counsel that there is no authenticated lab test report relating to the low germination of the seeds to prove defect in the seeds, as per section 13(1)(

c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ct. Further, petitioner has sent soil sample of the field of respondent No.1 to Government Soil Testing Lab and its report shows that land of respondent no.1 is not suitable for papaya crop. 13. Lastly, as a matter of fact, the seed packet shown by respondent no.1 revealed, that the date of testing of the seed is 14/08/2002 whereas the date of packing of the seed is 19/08/2002, then it is impossible that respondent no.2 had sold the seed packet on 13/08/2002 vide bill No.32708 & 32711 which was tested on 14/08/2002 as represented by respondent No.1 to the committee. In support of its contention learned counsel relied upon judgments; i) Suresh Kumar Vs. Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-op. Ltd. & Another II (2012)CPJ 170 (NC) and ii) National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy and another I (2012)CPJ 1 (SC) 14. District Forum while allowing the complaint in its order held; he complainant has purchased seeds from the opponents which is of fruit category and he has purchased it for gardening. Basically the seeds which were purchased and subsequently given by the company were not risen or flourished. First 5400 seeds out of which only 270 seeds were flourished. And hence the company has given 51 grams seeds to the complainant. In this context the opinion given by Seeds Committee for observing the place of cultivation is very expressive. As the seeds are having tough shell and were not capable of creating bud. And hence those seeds were not flourished as those were faulty. While considering the demand of compensation as the seeds were faulty the complainant did not get income. The opponents have taken defence by giving support of other crops mentioned in 7/12 extract that complainant has not sustained any loss. They have taken objection that the complainant has made cultivation of papaya seeds with a view to earn profits. However, agriculture is the source of livelihood for the complainant. Therefore, it is necessary for him to earn money from this source. There objection taken by the opponent in this context cannot be accepted as per opinion of this Forum. While cultivating seeds definitely the complainant has to incur some expenses. And if plants are not flourished all efforts and hard work becomes futile and he sustains mental agony. From the complaint it is clear that as the seeds were faulty, the complainant did not get fruits and he did not get income. Papaya is a crop which comes in fruits category. Those are sold as per weight. Therefore in a pamphlet the weight of fruit is mentioned. After considering then market rates, it is reasonable to consider demand of complainant for compensation. Even though demand is made for compensation of Rs.17,60,000/- the important point is the very purpose of complainant of cultivating papaya is not fulfilled and he did not receive income. The seeds are cultivated twice. For the first season if average of minimum 40 fruits is assumed the compensation for the first year would be 40 x 1 kg = 40 kg. and if fruits of the whole year are assumed as 1900, then 1900 x 40 = Rs.76,000/-. And if then market rate would be assumed as Rs.3/- per kg. then the complainant has sustained loss of Rs.76,000/- kg x Rs.3/- = Rs.2,28,000/-. We are of the opinion that it will be proper to give said compensation to the complainant. As the compensation for loss of income is given to the complainant, it includes amount of hard work, efforts and mental agony. Hence, it will not be reasonable to give separate amount to the complainant. 15. While concurring with the findings of the District Forum, State Commission in its impugned order observed; . It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased 5 packets of papai seeds of Z-86 variety weighing 50 gms from the org. opponent no.2 which is produced by org. opponent no.1 i.e. Seed

3

Company. It is also admitted fact that on the complaint of the complainant regarding poor germination of the said seeds the appellant seed company supplied to the complainant 3 packets of Z-86 variety of papai seeds weighing 30 gms and of Minza variety of 21 gms free of cost. It reveals that the complainant had to prepare twice 2700 polythene bags each containing two seeds for the sapling. According to the complainant in the first instance there was a germination of only 270 bags and second time he got only two saplings. Thus there was almost no germination of the said seeds. 8. The District Seed Committee headed by the District Agricultural officer named Shri. Shivaji Shrirang Jagtap has at the instance of the complainant visited the field and made the spot inspection regarding germination of the seeds, on 15.01.2003. The Seed Committee accordingly submitted its report on 30.01.2011. The committee in its report has reported that due to the hardness of the outer shell of seed they were found incapable for germination. The District Agricultural Officer has also filed affidavit in support of committee report and the same is on record. Thus, from the report of seed committee it is amply established that the said papai seeds were defective. 9. It is also revealed from the panchanama dated 15.01.2003 conducted by the District Seed Committee and from the extract of rochuresupplied by the dealer that the seeds under reference were tested by the seed company on 14.08.2002. However, the date of the purchase of the said seeds by the complainant is 13.08.2002 which proves that seeds under reference were sold without testing. It is the contention of the seed company that the seeds are first tested and then brought in the market for sale. However, in the instant case, the seeds are sold without testing. Hence, the contention of the seed company that the seeds were not defective is not acceptable. 10. The appellant seed company contention is that, the soil seed by the complainant in polythene bags in which seeds were sown have got tested by them from the Soil Testing Laboratory, Pune, and as per the testing report dated 03.03.2003 the soil was found harmful for the germination. However, procedure for getting the soil tested does not appear to be proper. In fact the appellant seed company should have made representation before District Forum for getting the soil tested but it was not done so. Therefore, soil which was got tested cannot go on record as an evidence. It is also the contention of the appellant seed company that he had requested the District Agricultural Officer for testing the seeds from the laboratory and accordingly one packet containing 5 gms of seeds handed over to him but no action was taken, hence in absence of the laboratory report the seeds cannot be said as defective. This contention is also not acceptable. In fact the right course for the Seed Company should have been to request the District Forum for the testing of the seeds from laboratory as the burden to prove that the seeds were not defective shifted on the company. However, the company did not produce the seeds for testing to the Dist. Forum. Therefore, in absence of the laboratory report the opinion given by the ist. Seed Committeeregarding defectiveness of the seeds prevails. 11. The further contention of the company that there was no loss of income to the complainant as the plants were not planted and no expenditure was incurred. It is further contended that it is not the case of the complainant that he had to keep land vacant for these papaya plantation, and that the 7/12 extract for relevant period it reveals that the complainant had taken alternate crop from the said land. This stand was also taken before the Forum however, Forum did not consider it and awarded huge amount of compensation. This contention of the appellant seed company does not also appear to be proper. In fact the complainant had planned to plant papaya trees and get certain income. However, due to the defective seeds his said plan was set at naught. His efforts, time and money which he put in for preparing the saplings has gone waste and he was left helpless due to the defective seeds. Considering all these aspects the Forum below has rightly awarded compensation which appears to be reasonable. While assessing the

4

compensation the Forum has considered a minimum of 40 fruits to each tree and each fruit of 1 kg. of weight. In a year having one harvesting season for 1900 papai trees it was expected to have the production of 76000 kg and considering price per kilo gram @ Rs.3/- the expected loss of income is calculated as Rs.2,28,000/- which appears to be acceptable. 16. Law on the subject in question has been dealt at length by Honle Supreme Court in National Seeds Corporation Ltd.(Supra) where appellant M/s. National Seeds Corporation Ltd. (NSCL) is a Government of India company. Its main functions are to arrange for production of quality seeds of different varieties in the farms of registered growers and supply the same to the farmers. The respondents own lands in different districts of Andhra Pradesh and are engaged in agriculture/seed production. They filed complaints with the allegation that they had suffered loss due to failure of the crops/less yield because the seeds sold/supplied by the appellant were defective. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums, Kurnool, Mehboob Nagar, Guntur, Khamman and Kakinada allowed the complaints and awarded compensation to the respondents. The appeals and the revisions filed by the appellant were dismissed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, `the State Commission') and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission respectively. Honle Supreme Court while disposing the Special Leave Petition held ; 4. We shall now deal with the question whether the District Forum committed a jurisdictional error by awarding compensation to the respondents without complying with the procedure prescribed under Section 13(1)(c). A reading of the plain language of that section shows that the District Forum can call upon the complainant to provide a sample of goods if it is satisfied that the defect in the goods cannot be determined without proper analysis or test. After the sample is obtained, the same is required to be sent to an appropriate laboratory for analysis or test for the purpose of finding out whether the goods suffer from any defect as alleged in the complaint or from any other defect. In some of these cases, the District Forums had appointed agricultural experts as Court Commissioners and directed them to inspect the fields of the respondents and submit report about the status of the crops. In one or two cases the Court appointed Advocate Commissioner with liberty to him to avail the services of agricultural experts for ascertaining the true status of the crops. The reports of the agricultural experts produced before the District Forum unmistakably revealed that the crops had failed because of defective seeds/foundation seeds. After examining the reports the District Forums felt satisfied that the seeds were defective and this is the reason why the complainants were not called upon to provide samples of the seeds for getting the same analysed/tested in an appropriate laboratory. In our view, the procedure adopted by the District Forum was in no way contrary to Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Act and the appellant cannot seek annulment of well-reasoned orders passed by three Consumer Forums on the specious ground that the procedure prescribed under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Act had not been followed. 35. The issue deserves to be considered from another angle. Majority of the farmers in the country remain illiterate throughout their life because they do not have access to the system of education. They have no idea about the Seeds Act and the Rules framed thereunder and other legislations, like, Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2011. They mainly rely on the information supplied by the Agricultural Department and Government agencies, like the appellant. Ordinarily, nobody would tell a farmer that after purchasing the seeds for sowing, he should retain a sample thereof so that in the event of loss of crop or less yield on account of defect in the seeds, he may claim compensation from the seller/supplier. In the normal course, a farmer would use the entire quantity of seeds purchased by him for the purpose of sowing and by the time he discovers that the crop has failed because the seeds purchased by him were defective nothing remains with him which could be tested in

5

a laboratory. In some of the cases, the respondents had categorically stated that they had sown the entire quantity of seeds purchased from the appellant. Therefore, it is naive to blame the District Forum for not having called upon the respondents to provide the samples of seeds and send them for analysis or test in the laboratory. 36. It may also be mentioned that there was abject failure on the appellant's part to assist the District Forum by providing samples of the varieties of seeds sold to the respondents. Rule 13(3) casts a duty on every person selling, keeping for sale, offering to sell, bartering or otherwise supplying any seed of notified kind or variety to keep over a period of three years a complete record of each lot of seeds sold except that any seed sample may be discarded one year after the entire lot represented by such sample has been disposed of. The sample of seed kept as part of the complete record has got to be of similar size and if required to be tested, the same shall be tested for determining the purity. The appellant is a large supplier of seeds to the farmers/growers and growers. Therefore, it was expected to keep the samples of the varieties of seeds sold/supplied to the respondents. Such samples could have been easily made available to the District Forums for being sent to an appropriate laboratory for the purpose of analysis or test. Why the appellant did not adopt that course has not been explained. Not only this, the officers of the appellant, who inspected the fields of the respondents could have collected the samples and got them tested in a designated laboratory for ascertaining the purity of the seeds and/or the extent of germination, etc. Why this was not done has also not been explained by the appellant. These omissions lend support to the plea of the respondents that the seeds sold/supplied by the appellant were defective. 37. In Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. v. Alavalapati Chandra Reddy, III (1998) CPJ 8 (SC) = VIII (1998) SLT 317 = (1998) 6 SCC 738, this Court did not decide the issue relating to the alleged non-compliance of Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Act, but approved the reasoning of the State Commission which found fault with the appellant for not taking steps to get the seeds tested in an appropriate laboratory. In that case, the respondent had complained that the sunflower seeds purchased by him did not germinate because the same were defective. The complaint was contested by the appellant on several grounds. The District Forum allowed the complaint and declared that the respondent was entitled to compensation @ Rs.2,000/- per acre in addition to the cost of the seeds. The State Commission rejected the objection of the appellant that the District Forum had not collected the sample of the seeds and sent them for analysis or test for determining the quality. The National Commission summarily dismissed the revision filed by the appellant. In paragraph 4 of the judgment, this Court extracted the finding recorded by the State Commission for upholding the order of the District Forum and declined to interfere with the award of compensation to the respondent. The relevant portions of paragraph 4 are reproduced below: hus, it is clear that it is on the permit granted by the Agricultural Officer that the complainants purchased seeds from the opposite parties and that the same Agricultural Officer visited the land and found that there was no germination. In view of the letter written by the Agricultural Officer to the opposite parties to which they sent no reply, it is clear that the same seeds that were purchased from the opposite parties were sown and they did not germinate. In view of the aforesaid letter of the Agricultural Officer, the District Forum felt that the seeds need not be sent for analysis. Moreover, if the opposite parties have disputed that the seeds were not defective they would have applied to the District Forum to send the samples of seeds from the said batch for analysis by appropriate laboratory. But the opposite parties have not chosen to file any application for sending the seeds to any laboratory. Since it is probable that the complainants have sown all the seeds purchased by them, they were not in a position to send seeds for analysis. In these circumstances, the order of the District Forum is not vitiated by the circumstance that it has not on its own accord sent

6

the seeds for analysis by an appropriate laboratory. * * * It is clear from the letter of the Agricultural Officer that the opposite parties in spite of their promise, never visited the fields of the complainants. The opposite parties did not adduce any material to show that the complainants did not manure properly or that there is some defect in the field. In the absence of such evidence and in view of the conduct of the opposite parties not visiting the fields and having regard to the allegation in the complaint that there were rains in the month of September 1991 and the complainants sowed the seeds, it cannot be said that there is any defect either in the manure or in the preparation of the soil for sowing sunflower seeds. (Emphasis supplied) 38. Reference can usefully be made to the orders of the National Commission in N.S.C. Ltd. v. Guruswamy (2002) CPJ 13, E.I.D. Parry (I) Ltd. v. Gourishankar (2006) CPJ 178 and India Seed House v. Ramjilal Sharma (2008) 3 CPJ 96. In these cases the National Commission considered the issue relating to non-compliance of Section 13(1)(c) in the context of the complaints made by the farmers that their crops had failed due to supply of defective seeds and held that the District Forum and State Commission did not commit any error by entertaining the complaint of the farmers and awarding compensation to them. In the first case, the National Commission noted that the entire quantity of seeds had been sown by the farmer and observed ; here is no doubt in our mind that where complainant alleges a defect in goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, then, the sample need to be taken and sent to a laboratory for analysis or test. But, the ground reality in the instant case is that reposing faith in the seller, in this case the leading Public Sector Company dealing in seed production and sale, the petitioner sowed whole of the seed purchased by him. Where was the question of any sample seed to be sent to any laboratory in the case? Whatever the Respondent/Complainant had, was sown. One could have appreciated the bonafides better, if sample from the crop was taken during the visit of Assistant Seed Officer of Petitioner-N.S.C. and sent for analysis. Their failure is unexceptionable. In our view, it is the Petitioner Company which failed to comply with the provisions of Section 13 (c) of the Act. By the time, complainant could be filed even this opportunity had passed. If the Petitioner Company was little more sensitive or alert to the complaint of the Respondent/Complainant, this situation might not have arisen. Petitioner has to pay for his insensitivity. The respondent/ complainant led evidence of State's agricultural authorities in support who made their statements after seeing the crop in the field. The onus passes on to the Petitioner to prove that the crop which grew in the field of the complainant was of 'Arkajyothi' of which the seed was sold and not of 'Sugar Baby', as alleged. He cannot take shelter under Section 13 (c) of the CP Act. Learned Counsel's plea that respondent/ complainant should have kept portion of seeds purchased by him to be used for sampling purposes, is not only unsustainable in law but to say the least, is very unbecoming of a leading Public Sector Seed Company to expect this arrangement. In the second case, the National Commission took cognizance of the objection raised by the appellant that the procedure prescribed under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Act had not been followed and observed: ; estimony of the complainant would show that whatever seed was purchased from respondent No. 2 was sown by him in the land. Thus, there was no occasion for complainant to have sent the sample of seed for testing to the laboratory. It is in the deposition of Jagadish Gauda that after testing the seed the petitioner company packed and sent it to the market. However, the testing report of the disputed seed has not been filed. Since petitioner company is engaged in business of sunflower seed on large scale, it must be having the seed of the lot which was sold to complainant. In order to prove that the seed sold to complainant was not sub- standard/defective, the petitioner company could have sent the sample for testing to the

7

laboratory which it failed to do. Thus, no adverse inference can be drawn against complainant on ground of his having not sent the sample of seed for testing to a laboratory. In the third case, the National Commission held ; olding in favour of the complainant, the National Commission stated that, it is not expected from every buyer of the seeds to set apart some quantity of seeds for testing on the presumption that seeds would be defective and he would be called upon to prove the same through laboratory testing. On the other hand a senior officer of the Government had visited the field and inspected the crop and given report under his hand and seal, clearly certifying that the seeds were defective. 39. The reasons assigned by the National Commission in the aforementioned three cases are similar to the reasons assigned by the State Commission which were approved by this Court in Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd.

v. Alavalapati Chandra Reddy (supra) and in our view the proposition laid down in those cases represent the correct legal position. 40. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. The appellant shall pay cost of Rs.25,000/- to each of the respondents. The amount of cost shall be paid within a period of 60 days from today 17. In the present case, petitioner in its written statement has admitted the factum of purchase of papai seeds by respondent no.1 from respondent no.2 on 13.8.2002, for which necessary bill was also given to respondent no.1. It also admitted that on 15.1.2003 the inspection of seeds was done in the presence of the authorised representative of the petitioner by the members of the Seed Committee and a Panchanama to this effect was prepared. As per this Panchanama, date of testing of the seed packet has been shown as 4.8.2002 18. I fail to understand as to how the packet of seeds which was sold on 13.8.2002 can have the date of testing of the seed as 4.8.2002 This clearly goes on to show that the seeds supplied to respondent no.1 on 13.8.2002, were not tested prior to selling the same to him as apparent from the Panchanama. Copy of this Panchanama is at page no.108 of paper book which read as under; PANCHANAMA e the undersigned Panchas being called, hereby draw this Panchanama in writing as under:- Today on 15/1/2003, we have remained present on the field of Shri Deepak Madanlal Agrawal, R(at Kapadne, Dist. Dhule; the field situated at village Nyahlod. While we verified the papaya seeds of Z-86 type and its 5 packets, its Lot No. is 176. Out of which on 4 packets last date is written as 13/2/03 and on 1 packet its written as 14/11/02. Those seeds are manufactured and packed by M/s. D.J. Damani & Sons, of Shivajinagar, Pune. On all the envelopes date of testing seeds is shown as 14/8/2002. M/s. Rajaram G. Patil Seds Co. of Sahkar Bhawan, Shivaji Road, Nashik who have issued their bills to the farmers bearing No.32708 & 32711. While we verified the date 13/8/02, it is prior to the date mentioned on the bills. This panchanama is drawn in the presence of members of the Distt. Complaint Redressal Committee and the farmers. These packets are taken in the custody by the Dist. Committee today on 15/1/2003. Place : Nyahlod Shiwar Signature of Panchas :

Farmers present:- 1) Chandrakant Santosh Patil 1) 2) Laxman Ratan Sonawane 2) 3) Deepak Madanlal Agrawal 3) (Names are not legible) 4) Prakash Pandhari Surshe 4) 5) Agent of Damani Co. 5) 19. Futher, Shri Shivaji Shrirang Jagtap, Agricultural Development Officer, Dhule has submitted an affidavit before the District Forum. Relevant portion of this affidavit states; hereafter out of seeds purchased 5 blank packets were investigated by the members for knowing the matter on labels, on which there is Lot No.176. Out of them on 4 packets final date was written as 13/2/03 and on 1 packet date was 14/11/2002. And on all the 5 packets seeds testing date is mentioned as 14/8/2002 and lable no. is not mentioned on packets. It is also mentioned that said seeds are manufactured and packed by D.J. Damani & Cons.. Shivajinagar, Pune. It means date of purchasing seeds is prior to the seeds testing date. And in one lot final date differs. For that purpose separate panchanama is drawn in the presence of seeds manufacturers representatives, and panchas. Its true copy is enclosed herewith. And 5

8

blank envelopes of Z-86 seeds are enclosed herewith. 20. Thus, it corroborates respondent no.1 version that seeds were not tested before having been sold to him. Further, report of Agricultural Committee was never challenged by the petitioner. 21. Now coming to the soil testing report on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner. Admittedly, the soil testing was done in March, 2003 but the same was done without any notice to respondent no.1. As such, it has got no value. 22. There are concurrent findings of the fact given by two Fora below that the seeds manufactured by the petitioner and supplied to respondent no.1 by respondent no.2 were defective and there is deficiency of service on their part. 23. It is well settled that under Section 21 (b) of the Act, scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited. This Commission can interfere with the order of the State Commission where such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. There is no illegality or material irregularity on the part of the State Commission in this case. 24. Honle Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed ; lso, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora. 25. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in National Seed Corporation (supra), I have no hesitation in holding that both the Fora below did not commit any error. 26. Consequently, the present petition is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed. 27. No order as to cost.

......................J

V.B. GUPTA

PRESIDING MEMBER

9