In this revision petition there is challenge to order dated 24.08.2012, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharastra (for short, tate Commission 2. Respondent No.1/Complainant an agriculturist having irrigated agricultural land at Village Sindi (Rly.), Taluka Seloo, District Wardha. Petitioners/Opponent No.1 to 3 are the certified seed corporation having its branches at each District and each Taluka place in Maharashtra State and it supplies the seeds to its branches. Respondent No.2/Opponent No.4 produces the cotton foundation seeds and supply it to petitioners for sale to the agriculturists through its branches. 3. On 19/07/1998, respondent no. 1 purchased 8 bags of Cotton Seeds from Respondent No.3/O.P. no.5 and each bag was containing 3 Kgs. of seeds. Those bags were having the seals affixed by the respondent no.2 and was having printed label of respondent no.3 which is a seed testing agency. He paid the amount of Rs.3,650/- towards cost of the seeds inclusive of inspection fee of Rs.960/- 4. On 19/07/1998 itself, respondent no.1 sown the same cotton seeds in his field admeasuring 20 acres. He took every care and precaution while sowing the seeds. There was also sufficient rain fall for sowing purpose. However, there was very poor germination. According to respondent no.1 there was germination of 30% seeds only. Therefore, on 29/07/1998 he made complaint with District Agricultural Officer, Wardha. In response to his complaint, District Agricultural Officer along with the representative of the respondent no.3 visited the field of the respondent no.1 and found that there was poor germination. According to the members of the committee there was 50% germination of seeds and they found that 50% seeds were damaged and defective and incapable of germination. Accordingly, they prepared the panchanama. Thereafter, respondent no.1 made complaint before District Consumer Forum, Wardha (for short, istrict Forum claiming compensation at Rs. 2,60,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and also cost of proceeding. 5. In response petitioners resisted the complaint vide their written version. They did not dispute that respondent no.1 had purchased 8 bags of cotton seeds from respondent no.3.They also did not dispute the cost of the seed bags. However, they have disputed that those seeds were damaged and were having the poor germination. They have also not disputed that respondent no.

1 made complaint with them and on the basis of his complaint, the Agriculture Officer and others including the representative of the respondent no.3 visited respondent no.1 field and found that 50% seeds were damaged. They also did not dispute that they received Rs.3,650/- towards cost of the seeds inclusive of inspection fee of Rs.960/- from the complainant. However, petitioners denied that those seeds were already damaged and having poor germination capacity. It is alleged that respondent no.1 has not taken proper care as per the instructions while sowing the seeds. Respondent no.1 was instructed for sowing 1 bag seed in 1 acre and, therefore, respondent no.1 had purchased 8 bags of seeds for sowing in 8 acre land only. But without following their instructions, respondent no. 1 had sown the seeds in 20 acres of land. Therefore, there was such poor germination, etc. 6. Opponent Nos. 4 & 5 also resisted the complaint by their separate written version. According to them there was no privity of contract between them and respondent no.1. They are the research institution and they are not engaged in any trade, sale of goods to consumers. According to them they produced the breed seed of cotton as per orders of the government of India. According to them the seeds in question was allotted to the State of Maharashtra vide Government of India order dated 23/04/1997. It is submitted that the certified seeds can only be sold for agricultural crop. It is also subject to certification from the State Certifying Agency. Further it is submitted that the seeds in question were for sowing in the Kharif season for the year 1997 only and should have been used in the same season. 7. District Forum, Wardha, vide order dated 6.12.2000 allowed the complaint of respondent no.1 and awarded him a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with cost of Rs.1,000/-. 8. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, Petitioners filed appeal before the State Commission which dismissed it, vide impugned order. 9. Hence, the present revision petition. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the record. 11. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent no.1 had participated in seed production programme for eight acres of the land and accordingly obtained eight bags of seeds which were sufficient only for eight acres of the land. As per the receipt, it is apparent that respondent no.1 had participated in seed production programme for eight acres of land in as much as in addition he has sown the seeds in 20 acres of the land and this is what caused and can be sufficient reason for loss in yield. 12. It is further contended that various other factors such as scarcity of water, excess water, quality of soil, spraying of insecticide etc. can also effect the yield. In fact Panchanama which has been done by the authorities who visited the field is silent on the quality of the seeds. In fact team of the expert who have visited the field in question and have mentioned that quality of the seeds can be one of the reason. They have also mentioned that other reason can be scarcity of rainfall. Thus, squarely holding that the loss was caused due to quality of seeds is erroneous. 13. District Forum, in its order held; n the instant case under discussion the authorized competent officers have done inspection and have prepared a Panchanama duly signing the same. Hence the Panchanama in the instant case cannot be discarded but has to be believed. Besides this, it is pertinent to note that the Panchanama at Ex.3A is admitted these NAs No.1 to 2. There is also another instance on the part of deficiency of NAs. When the representative of the NAs was present at the time of Panchanama, he ought to have sent the seeds for analysis to the proper laboratory as the seeds were found to be defective and rotten by him, but no action was taken. This is also clear negligence on the part of the NA particularly when it is allotting a seed plot for foundation seed to the private cultivator like complainant at his risk. Thus the N.A. No.1 to 3 are liable to pay compensation to the complainant for supply of defective seeds and failure to render proper service to him and the losses he suffered

14. The State Commission, while affirming the decision of the District Forum, in impugned order observed; n the contrary in para No.9 of their written version it is clearly admitted that at the time of inspection made by the District Agriculture Officer in the presence of representative of the opponent No.3, the seeds which were sown by the complainant in his field were found 30% damaged and incapable of germination. It is not the contention of the appellants/ opponents that those seeds were damaged after sowing in the field. When undisputedly the complaint was made immediately within 10 days of purchasing the seeds it cannot be disputed that those seeds were already damaged when it was purchased by the complainant from the opponent No.3. If there was no sufficient irrigation or favorable climate there would have been no germination of the others seeds. Therefore, there cannot be any other reasonable interference except that more than 30% seeds were already damaged before sowing in the field of the complainant. When this fact is admitted by the opponent the same need not be proved by any laboratory test. It is also not the contention of the opponents/appellants that there was no sufficient rain fall and favorable climate for germination of those seeds. On the contrary, panchanama clearly reflects that all the conditions were favorable for the germination of the seeds 15. In the present case at the time of inspection of the fields, representative of the petitioners was also present in person and Panchanama was prepared in his presence, which reads as under; PANCHANAMA DT. 29.7.98 Shindi Today on 29.7.98 application from Arvind Bajiraoji Borkar at & Post Sindi (Railway) Tq. Sheloo Distt. Wardha regarding less germination of the Breeder Seed of Cotton LRK 516 has been received by the office of Agricultural Development Officer Distt. Wardha. As per that on 29.7.98 inspection of field of Shri Arvind Bajirao Borkar has been conducted at that time the following officers were present 1) Agricultural Development Officer Distt.P. Wardha 2) Drive Officer Distt. P. Pardha 3) Shri Snakshe, Raid Officer, MSSCL Wardha 4) Distt. Quality control Inspector Wardha, as well as Shri Borkar, Shri Vilas Maske, Shri Namdeorao Maske were also present in the field at the time of inspection. Said seed is registered for the seed production programme. Registration fee of the seed for eight acres has been deposited in the office of Mahabeej, for that 24 Kg, eight bags containing 3 Kg each has been purchased. Said seed is purchased from the Seed Processing Centre Mahabeej Sheloo on 17.7.98. Said seed is having Batch No. JAN-97-13-02-01 (Breeder Seed) Said seed has been sown on 19.7.98 and its plantation was done at the distance of 3 X 3. On every sign two seeds have been inserted, at some place on seed and at some place 2 seeds have been germinated. Germination of the said seed is 30%. On sowing on 19.7.98 there was rainfall on 23.7.98. there was sufficient moisture for germination of seed. Said seed has been sown in 20 acres. Defaulted seed has been supplied. Out of that only one Kg. Seed remained in balance. On inspection of the same it is found infected. On this basis possibility of less germination cannot be ruled out. The seed has been produced at Cotton Research Centre Nagpur. On the above situation following conclusion is drawn. On inspection of remaining seed 50% seed is infected (2) second reason for less germination may be less rainfall. 1) Agricultural Development Officer, Distt. P. Wardha 2) Information Officer, Distt. P. Wardha 3) Distt. Quality Control Inspector Wardha 4) Representative of Mahabeen Wardha 5) Sh. Vilas Maske 6) Shri Arvind Borkar 7) Shri Narendra Arvind Borkar. Sd/- 17-8 Agricultural Development Officer Zila Parishad Wardha 16. Law on the subject in question has been dealt at length by Honle Supreme Court in National Seeds Corporation Ltd. M. Madhusudhan Reddy and another I (2012)CPJ 1 (SC) 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, he 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 17. In the present case, the Panchanama was prepared in the presence of petitionersrepresentative. There is nothing on record to show that at the time of preparation of the Panchanama, representative of the petitioners ever objected to the same. Thus, as per Panchanama 50% of the seeds were infected. This plea of the petitioners that seeds were required to be sown in 8 acres of fields but that quantity was sown for an area of 20 acres, is no help to the petitioners as admittedly 50% seeds were infected. 18. 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. 19. There is no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order of the State Commission. Consequently, the present petition being not maintainable is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only). 20. Petitioners are directed to deposit cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) by way of demand draft, in the name of onsumer Legal Aid Accountof this Commission, within four weeks from today. 21. In case, petitioners fail to deposit the cost within the prescribed period, then it shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., till realization. 22. Pending application, if any stands disposed of. 23. List on 25th October, 2013 for compliance. ......................J

V.B. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... REKHA GUPTA MEMBER