V.B Gupta, Presiding Member:— As common question of facts and law are involved in the above noted revision petitions, same are being disposed of by this single order.

2. Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short, ‘State Commission’) vide common impugned order dated 12.12.2010, disposed of 39 appeals in all filed by the unsuccessful complainants/agriculturists against manufacturer of ‘Roshini Chilly Seeds’. State Commission has taken (Appeal No. 1244 of 2008, Sygenta India Ltd. v. P. Chowdaiah) that is, RP No. 1451 of 2011 as the lead case.

3. Case of Complainants in brief is that they are agriculturists owing agricultural land in Pamulapadu village of Kurnool District. They purchased 40 packets of hybrid chilly seeds called ‘Roshni’ @ Rs. 170/- per packet. manufactured by Petitioner/O.P.No . 2 and sold by its Distributor-cum-Agents/Respondents, on 7.6.2006 Complainants had sown the seeds, adopted the agricultural practices and applied fertilizers and pesticides and incurred an expenditure of Rs. 30,000/- per acre. Despite assurance of yield of 25 quintals per acre, complainants hardly could get 2 quintals per acre due to defect in the seeds. The growth was poor and did not give even the minimum yield. When they complained to the agricultural department, Joint Director of Agriculture along with Scientists and Asst. Agricultural Officer visited the crop in the last week of December, 2006 and opined that the seeds were defective. In fact local variety 334 had yielded around 12-14 quintals per acre. It has been further alleged by the complainants that then Senior Scientist, Regional Agricultural Research Station, Nandyal along with the Assistant Director of Agriculture and Agricultural Officer of Atmakur Division, visited to inspect the crops on 14.2.2007 and opined that the over-all hybrid vigor was very poor and due to this poor growth, less pod productive plants and more poor productive plants were observed and due to these reasons poor yields are expected. Thus, complainants had in all sustained a loss of 90 quintals and therefore claimed Rs. 6,800/- towards refund of cost of seeds, Rs. 3,79,845/- towards compensation, Rs. 1,10,000/- towards cost of fertilizers, pesticides and labour etc. besides Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony in all Rs. 5,46,645/- A tabular form has been given mentioning the claims of each of the complainants in all these cases at para 19 of the impugned order.

4. On the other hand, case of petitioner's company is that as per bills or the brochure, petitioner has not given any guarantee regarding the growth and yield of the crop, which depends upon the environmental components. Further, it is a common knowledge that condition of crop and quality of yield depends upon many factors including the physical condition of the soil, moisture content at the sowing time, the sowing methodology, water quality used for irrigation, long dry spell in the atmosphere and other diseases and virus that may attack the plants. It is further stated that that total period of crop duration is 6 - 9 months including the nursery period. The field inspection was done only after six months of sowing by the Scientist. By that time, the crop was at the end of its life. Further, report of experts shows that the crop was infected with pest and that too sucking pest.

5. It was further alleged that neither the taking of experts to the field nor the report of the experts were communicated to the petitioner's company. Everything was done at the back of petitioner's company and without its knowledge. Thus, there is no deficiency on the part of the petitioner's company.

6. The District Consumer Forum, Kurnool (for short, ‘District Forum’) vide its order dated 1.12.2008, after considering the evidence placed on record, opined that the printed brochure relating to hybrid Roshini seeds do not anywhere mention the expected yield or that it was resistant to pests. It further held, that the complainants could not establish that the seeds were defective and as such dismissed 26 complaints. However, it had allowed 13 complaints.

7. Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, complainants filed appeals before the State Commission which allowed the same, vide its impugned order.

8. Now Petitioner's Company has filed the present revision petitions.

9. We have heard Sh. Subramonium Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sh. Debojit Borkakali, learned counsel for respondents (in RPs No. 1451 to 1473 of 2011) and Sh. V. Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for respondents (in RPs No. 1474 to 1489 of 2011). We have also perused the record and have gone through the written submissions also.

10. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that complainants had to prove that they had taken the precautions at the time of sowing the seeds. In the cash bill issued by the distributors it is clearly mentioned that they do not give any guarantee regarding the growth and yield of the crop, which depends upon the environmental components. Further, factors guaranteed by the petitioner are specifically printed on the label and printed on the seed packet. There is no guarantee on the quantum of yield on the resistance from viral diseases and thrips. Even the pamphlets/brochure issued by the petitioner's company regarding ‘Roshini’ do not say any guarantee of the resistance to viral diseases thrips of the yield of the crop. Further, it is a common knowledge that the condition of the crop and the quantity of the yield depends upon many factors including the physical condition of the soil, the moisture content at the showing time, the sowing methodology, salt accumulation in surface layers, water quality used for irrigation, long dry spell in the atmosphere and other disease and virus that may attack the plant. It also depends upon the remedial measures applied by the complainants when confronted with such situations. Strangely, complainants say that the bills for the fertilizers and pesticides used for the crop are missing. In absence of it, no premium can be given to the complainants for absence of evidence on crucial point. It is also contended that complaint is also silent as to the nature of the fertilizers or pesticides or fungicides used in this case. Further, complaint is also silent as to the nature of the disease to the plant and when it occurred and in that case what complainants did with it. It is an admitted fact that in June, 2006 the seeds were sown. The correct procedure was that seeds should have been grown in a nursery and then transplanted to the field. At the very inception, the complainants went wrong. Further, the total period of crop duration is 6 - 9 months including the nursery period. In the present case, only after six months of sowing, complainants took the scientist and their team for field inception. By that time the crop will be at the end of its life. The reports of the experts show that the crop was infected with pest and that too sucking pest. Sucking pest is otherwise called thrips. It sucks under-surface of the leaves and if it is not controlled immediately by using frequently the required pesticides as advised by the Agricultural Officer or as recommended by the Agricultural University, it becomes uncontrollable and naturally the plant will be affected and the yield will be affected. It is also contended that it is clear from the complaint as well as from the expert report, that the crop failed because of the sucking pest which was not attended to by the complainants.

11. It is further contended that at the earliest point of time of the attack, the complainants should have intimated to the petitioner and should have approached the agricultural officer for proper remedies. Complainants' action are highly belated, by which time the whole damage has been done to the crop. Further, neither taking of expert to the field nor the report of the expert were communicated to the petitioner. The rules require that such communications should have been conveyed to the petitioner, so as to help the complainants to prevent the damage. Everything has been done at the back of the petitioner and without any knowledge to the petitioner. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner and the claims of the complainants are not tenable. In support, learned counsel has cited a decision of this Commission, Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. v. Kopolu Sambasiva Rao, 1V (2005) CPJ 47 (NC)

12. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the respondents that respondents-farmers had sown the seeds on adopting the agricultural practices, applied fertilizers and pesticides, incurring an expenditure of Rs. 30,000/- per acre. The petitioner-company had given assurance of yield of 25 quintals per acre, but the respondents could hardly get even 2 quintals per acre due to defect in the seeds. Further, the growth was poor and it did not give even the minimum yield. Therefore, farmers complained to the Agricultural Department about the defective seeds. After receiving the complaint, the Joint Director of Agriculture along with Scientists and Assistant Agricultural Officer visited the crop of the farmers in the last week of December, 2006 and opined that the seeds were defective by comparing with local variety 334 which yielded around 12-14 quintals per acre.

13. It is further contended that the case of respondents have been proved by way of evidence of the experts. The experts report states that hybrid vigor was very poor and due to poor growth, complainants got poor yields. Therefore, there are defects in the seeds as well as deficiency of service in supplying of the seeds.

14. Learned counsel for respondents in support of their contentions relied upon following judgments;

(i) National Seeds Corpn. v. P.V Krishna Reddy, 2009 (CTJ) 522;

(ii) D.J Damani and Sons v. Deepak Madanlal Agarwal, II (2013) CPJ 102 (NC);

(iii) Maya Seeds Development Corpn. v. Sandhu, 2005 CPJ 13(SC);

(iv) National Seeds Corporation v. Madhusudhan Reddy [2012 (1) Scale 367];

(v) M/s Maharshtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd. v. Alavalapati Chandra Reddy Reported in III (1989) CPJ 8 (SC) and

(vi) H.N Shankara Shastry v. Asstt. Director Of Agriculture, Karnataka of Agriculture, Karnataka reported in II (2004) CPJ 37 (SC).

15. The District Forum, while dismissing the complaints, in its order held;

“6. The complainant did not place any such cogent material which holds with any definiteness and specificness that the seed purchased and sowed in their lands was defective and effected the yield. Nor any material is placed in substantiation of the complaint averment as to inspection of field by Joint Director of Agriculture along with scientific in the month of December 2006 and holding defect in Roshini Hybrid Chilly seed.

7. The Ex. A1 is the inspection report of Dr. Y. Rama Reddy, Scientist, RARS Nandyal pertaining to Roshini Chilli Hybrid crop in the fields of the farmers in Ramireddypalli of Koilakuntala Division and Pamulapadu, Eskala, Santhinilayam, and Abdullahpuram Villages of Atmakur Division. The said inspection and observation was said to have been made on his visit, on 13-2-2007 and 14-2-2007, along with Assistant Director of Agriculture and Agricultural Officer of said division. The said observation report nowhere alleges defect in the seed resulted to this state of circumstances which it observes in the said Ex. A1 as to the Roshini Chilly Yield in said fields of the farmers. On the other hand it observes sucking pest to the crop therein the fields and thereby not rooting out the possibility for the said state of circumstances to the crop on account of the sucking pest. Even though it takes further that Hybrid vigour was very poor (to the crop) and due to this poor growth, less pod productive plants and more poor productive plants, but as the said was not attributed in reference to any defect of the seed sowed in said fields that to without any scientific test of the said crop as to Hybrid vigour and further with the said circumstances to the crop expecting a further two or three poor yields not assessing the probable quantity of the said probable yield, the said Ex. A1 observation remains with any cogent reliability to hold any defect in the seed especially when there is any complaint as to germination of seed and plant population and its growth and any other abnormal physiological features of leaf size, petal colour, pod colour, length of pod. Further the Ex. A1 observation report being on mere physical look at the said crop and not being arrived on any approved pathological test and there being any material to hold that the sacking pest to the crop is on account of the defective seed only, and as the evidence of P.W 1 says that he did not conduct any seed test, the Ex. A1 is remaining of any much avail to the complainant's case to hold the loss of expected yield to the complainant is on account of defect in seed alone

8. The P.W 1 is a mere breeder scientist. Entomologists deal with deceases of the crops and scientific study in respect of pest. While evidence of P.W 1 says as to several types in sucking pest such as thrips, mites and aphids, neither his observation report nor his evidence could classify the kind of sucking pest observed on the crop in the fields and further he does not appear to be in know of hybrid as he says at one juncture hybrids are of two types as F1 & F2 and at other juncture says the F2 is not hybrid as it is produced in resowing the F1 seed. Hence his evidence appear to be of any much help to the case of the complainant especially when Section 12 and 13 of Seeds Act empowers the seed analysis to seed inspector and the P.W 1, the author of Ex. A1, was shown as any such empowered seed inspector for holding any seed analysis.

9. The Vyavasaya Panchangam for 2006-2007, published by Aacharya N.G Ranga Agricultural University, Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad in its Pg. 270 to 273 deals with chilly crop and of the precautionary measures to be taken in crop cultivation for good yield and for fighting the pest and thrips till harvest. At Pg. No. 272 it envisages of the measures to be taken for crop production from various pests including thrips and recommends use of Carboril 3 grams, or Fasalone 3 ml or Esiphate 1.5 grams or Fipronil 2 ml or Spinosad 0.25 ml with 1 litre of water and its spraying on effected parts. As preventive measure it recommends the use of 8 kilos of 0.3 % Fiprosil Capsules on 15th and 45th day of plantation when moisture is still in field. It recommends the processing and culturing of the chilly seed with Imideclofrid and balanced use of organic and inorganic fertilizers and manures in cultivation of said crop. Neither the complaint averments nor the evidence of complainant takes any mention of the adoption of said measures in crop management in their fields. Nor any bills of purchase of those pesticides, fertilizers and manuals is filed by the complainant with any assertion as to its use as recommended to meet the said contingent state of circumstances to their chilly crop. By this what is remaining clear is that the complainant had not taken any adequate required measures in crop management and thereby remaining as a cause for such state of circumstance to the crop and so cannot blame anybody and nonetheless attribute it to any defect in seed.

10. The Ex. A10.Ex. B1 a xerox of printed broucher relating to Roshini Hybrid Chilies and its beneficial features. It no where says of the quantum of expected yield for acre or lends any assurance to any quantity. It says the yield starts its commencement from 55 to 60 days of plantation. As per Ex.A3 chilly seed of Roshini Hybrid was purchased in the month of June, 2006. As per sworn affidavit of the complainant the purchased seed was sowed in the same month in their lands for growing nursery and after the necessary nourishing they were transplanted. The inspection of the fields, where said roshini variety was raised, was done by the P.W 1 on 13-2-2007 to 14-2-2007. Hence from the said time factor what appears is that the said inspection was done about 8 months after to the purchase of the seed and its sowing. As the yielding of said variety commences from 55 to 60 days of its transplantation, the complainant must have got several periodical cuttings of yield of said chilly crop by the date of inspection of the said fields by P.W 1. But neither the complaint nor the sworn affidavit of the complainant nor the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 could say of the yield got by the complainant by the date of said inspection. When the Ex. A1 says a further probability for 2 or 3 yields to said crop it is not clear from the complainant side even the quantum of yield got to the complainant in said 2 or 3 further probable yields.

11. The complainants side expect alleging it was assured of 25 quintals of yield per acre by the opposite parties, did not substantiate it. Nor any other cogent material appears from the complainant side to the effect that the said hybrid variety was made understood to yield 23 quintals per acre. Nor any material as to earlier years of yield of said variety was placed to establish the truth in said contention of the complainant.

12. A local variety No. 334 said to have yielded 12 to 15 quintals per acre, which is not proved by evidence of persons who raised said crop is of any avail to the complainant as comparison as to any merit or demerit must be with the same kind but not with the other kinds.

13. Copy of adangal extract in Ex.A4 said to be of land of complainant in Sy. No. 28/1 of Pamulapadu envisaging cultivation of chillily crop in the extent stated therein is remaining of any avail to the case of the complainant as it does not envisage to which year the said account pertains to and the concern of the complainant to the said land for want of the name of the complainant in relevant columns of cultivation or pattadar. Another copy of adangal covered in Ex. A4 said to be pertaining to land in Sy. No. 29/1 of Pamulapadu envisaging cultivation of Chilly crop on an extent of Ac.1.50 cents in the Fasli year 1416 is also remaining of any avail to the complainant as it does not show the concern of the said land to the complainant for want of the name of the complainant in relevant columns of cultivation or pattadar”.

14. As discussed in supra paras as to the viability of the Ex. A1 report and evidence of P.W 1 in reference to Ex. A1 against to complainant's contentions as to the aspect of defect in seed and in the absence of any cogent material as to defect in seed the mere paper clippings in Ex.A5, A9 and representations in Ex.A6 & A7 remains any avail to the complainant's case as they cannot be substitute proof for holding defect in seed”.

Lastly, the District Forum held;

“22. When the defect in seed is not established in an approved manner and on the other hand the said state of circumstances to the crop in the field appears to be on account of thrips with which it was infested and thrips to said crop appears to be at the deficient crop management of the farmer and after germination the progress of the crop not only depends upon the crop management and field management, but also on friendly agro environmental conditions as no seed yields crop in the mere air, the cause for said improper yield or less than expected yield is more at the deficiency of the complainant in crop management rather than any inherent defect in the seed and thereby there being any material to hold the defect in seed supplied by the opposite parties which must have ensured loss of expected yield to complainant, there appears any liability of the opposite parties for the claim of the complainant.

23. Hence, there being any merit and force in the claim of the complainant the case of the complainant is dismissed”.

16. State Commission while reversing the decision of District Forum in its impugned order observed;

“For the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the shelf life of the seed was over and therefore they could not send for analysis does not stand in the light of Section 13 of the Seeds Act. If we compare the format and contents of Ex. B1 with which alone the purchaser was obliged to make do, with Rule, 8 of Seeds Rules is crystal clear that the respondents gave a go by even to the barest minimum of compliance with law. This disobedience to law on the part of respondent becomes all the more clear if we compare Ex. B1 more so when Rule 13(3) of Seeds Rules set out above costs an obligation on the part of the seller of seeds to preserve the samples of seeds in terms thereof for the purpose of getting them tested if required. The dispensation in Rule 13(3), thus, amply indicates that when the quality of seeds sold is called in question the seller has to raise to the occasion to dispel it. It is for the seller to get them tested for their efficacy in germination and genetic purity and other purity in quality especially when such data is not proved by producing the statutory labels. It is therefore clear from the material available that the opposite parties totally failed in showing the seeds in question were free from defect namely standard germination and genetic purity. This deficiency smacks both the defect in sees as also deficiency in service of supply of seeds.

13 The complainants are agriculturists who own lands could find that crop did not grow nor the yield as promised approached the agricultural authorities in fact gave a report to the Joint Director of Agriculture, Kurnool, who in turn deputed the Senior Scientist, Regional Agricultural Research Station, Nandyal. The Scientist and Agricultural Officers who visited the crop categorically stated that over all hybrid vigor was very poor. Due to this, there was poor growth, less productive plants and more poor productive plants were observed. In fact they compared with the local variety 334 and opined that there would be very low yield. Taking cue from the report of the scientists that sucking pest was afflicted, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that no where it was stated that it was not resistant to pests. There is no meaning in creating hybrid variety after conducting resistance tests etc., if they are not resistant to pests. In fact the manufacturer ought to have mentioned that it would resist to pests, and in case if afflicted the precautions to be taken to contain these pests or viruses.

14. Obviously the agriculturists do not have wherewithal to conduct tests etc. as that of a manufacturer. What all they could do is obtain an opinion of the agricultural officer and expert in the subject”.

It further observed;

“18. At the cost of repetition, we may state that the complainants have proved their cases beyond doubt by examining the Scientist as well as the Joint Director of Agriculture that the crop had failed. The Scientists also compared this crop with that of the neghbouring crop raised with a different variety, and found that it had yielded 12 - 15 quintals per acre. The manufacturer did not sent the seeds that were released to the market under the said batch in order to prove that the seeds were not of inferior in quality. It did not even file the laboratory test reports that were conducted before releasing the seeds to the market. The questions in regard to nature of land, irrigation facilities etc. were of general nature. As we have earlier pointed out PW1 did not state that the lands were not suitable for raising chilly crop and there was any adverse climatic conditions. The very fact that in the neighbouring lands yield was good show that there was deficiency in the seeds manufactured by the respondent. There could not have been total loss of crop for all these agriculturists had seeds been in conformity with the specifications. We have absolutely no hesitation to hold that the crops were failed due to defective seeds. The complainants have proved by leading both oral and irrefutable documentary evidence that they have sustained loss in view of defect in the seeds.

19. Coming to the quantum of compensation, it is not in dispute that the complainants have raised the chilly crop in an extent of land as mentioned in the complainants. If we take minimum 12 quintals per acre as deposed by PW1 and computing @ Rs. 4,500/- per quintal the loss would come to Rs. 54,000/- per acre. The complainants would get the yield after applying fertilizers and pesticides etc. All this includes cost of the crop. Therefore the complainants are not entitled to value of the seeds, fertilizers and pesticides etc. separately, PW1 in fact deposed that the expected yield would be 12 quintals per acre. Since the manufacturer did not dispute the rate of chilly at Rs. 4,500/- per quintal, the complainants are entitled to 12 quintals per acre @ 4,500/- per quintal together with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- each besides costs of Rs. 3,000/- each”.

17. The short question which arises for consideration is as to whether hybrid chilly seeds called ‘Roshini’ as manufactured by petitioner's company and sold by its distributor, were defective or not.

18. In this regard, complainants have relied upon two inspection reports conducted by the Officers of Agriculture Department.

19. First report is dated 6.12.2006 with regard to the Chillies Crops grown in Alampur village, Allagadda Mandal Kurnool District, copy of which has been placed (at page no. 567 of the paper-book) and same is reproduced as under;

“COURT ON VISIT OF CHILLIES CROP IN ALAMUR VILLAGE, ALLAGADDA MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT

On request of Assistant Director Agriculture, Allagada through letter ROC. No. C/120/06 DATED 1.12.2006 Sri I.J Michale Ragiv, Horticultural Officer, Allagadda mandal Sri R. Narasimha Reddy, Scientist (G&PB), RARs Nandyal and Sri G.V Bhaskar Reddy, Assistant Director of Agriculture, Allagadda Agricultural Division inspected formers' fields who have grown chilies crop in Alamur village on 6.12.2006 The team observations are;

•Chilies are grown in large area.

•Chilies variety is Rhosni and is the product of Syngeta company.

•All plants were infected with thrips.

•High Incidence of virus(Poty and Tospo).

• No or less fruit set observed.

•High incidence of die back and fruit not diseases.

• Most of the plants were in stunted in growth due to the diseases.

•Symptoms of Sphondylia capsici insect also observed in about 5% of plants.

On enquiry farmers said they have not observed flowering even though the crop attained the age of 100 days and they were in distress mood. Even then they have spent about Rs. 25,000/- till now towards for cultivating the crop leaving inside their family man power and land lease. They have harvested two quintals of green chillies only and they are dropped into bankrupt.

Remarks:

1. The Crop is infected with Thrips and Viruses.

2. Die back and fruit not incidence is more.

Suggestions:

1. Farmers are requested to approach the concerned officials for needy help.

2. It is requested to help the farmers to get rid off from the bankrupancy”.

20. The second report is an inspection report conducted by Dr. Y. Rama Reddy, Senior Scientist, PARS, Nandyal (copy of which has been placed at page no. 559 of the paper-book). The same is reproduced as under;

“Inspection report of Dr. Y. Rama Reddy, Senior Scientist, PARS, Nandyal during the month of February 2007, pertaining to Roshini chilli Hybrid.

I visited Roshini Chilly hybrid plots under revenue divisions of Koilkuntla and Atmakur on 13.2.2007 and 14.2.2007 respectively along with Assistant Director of Agriculture and Agriculture Officers of above divisions. Observations as follows:

S. No. Characters Ramireddy Palli under Koilkuntia division Pamulapadu Iskala, Santhinilayam and Abdullapuram under Atmakur division 1. Plant Population Normal Normal 2. Plant height (cm) 45-60 45-60 3. Leaf size Small to medium Small to medium 4. Petal color White White 5. Pollen Color Green Green 6. Pod color Dark green at developmental stage, red at maturity Dark green at developm-ental stage, red at maturity 7. Length of the Pod (cm) 6 to 9 6 to 9 8. Productive plant Very poor i.e, 1 or 2% only, rest poor productive (10 to 25 pods/plant) Very poor i.e 1 or 2% 2 only, rest poor productive (10 to 25 pods/plant) 9. Pest Sucking pest observed Sucking pest observed 10. Yield Q/acre 2 to 3 poor yields are expected 1 to 2 poor yields are expected

Over all hybrid vigor was very poor, due to this poor growth, less pod productive plants and more poor productive plants were observed. Due to these reasons poor yields are expected. But local variety 334 was observed good performance and yields expected around 12 to 15 Q/acre in all divisions”.

21. Both the Fora below have considered the above reports.

22. District Forum did not rely upon these reports, whereas State Commission on the basis of these reports, has allowed the complaints and has awarded the compensation.

23. It is an admitted fact that Chilly Seeds were sown in the first week of June, 2006. However, the first inspection was conducted in December, 2006 and second inspection was conducted in February, 2007.

24. There is nothing on record to show as to why the complainants did not make any complaint to the concerned authorities when there was no flowering in the crop for 100 days. There is also no explanation as to why complainants-farmers approached the concerned authorities only after 6 to 8 months after the crops had been sown.

25. As per inspection report dated 6.12.2006, complainants have stated that they did not observe flowering even though crop attained the age of 100 days. There is also no explanation as to why even after three months of the sowing of the seeds, complainants did not make any complaint to the manufacturer or seller of the seeds.

26. Further, as per remarks given by the inspecting officials in their report dated 6.12.2006, it categorically states that;

“1 The Crop is infected with Thrips and Viruses.

2. Die back and fruit not incidence is more”.

27. Moreover, as per this report inspecting officials requested the farmers to approach the concerned officials for needy help.

28. The above inspection report dated 6.12.2006, nowhere states that there was any defect in the seeds. On the other hand, it has been stated that the “Crop is infected with Thrips and Viruses”. There is nothing on record to show that due to the quality of the seeds only, the crop can be infected with Thrips and Viruses. The crop can be affected by so many factors such as, the quality of the soil or due to nature of the pesticides and fertilizers and other chemicals used, if in excess or in less quantity. Thus, report dated 6.12.2006, has nowhere put any blame upon the Petitioner's Company.

29. Now coming to the second report which is dated 13/14.2.2007. It also mentioned about pest as its states:

“9 Pest Sucking pest observed Sucking pest observed”.

30. Thus, from the second report dated 13/14.2.2007 also, it is very clear that the crops were infected with “Sucking Pest”. However, this inspection was done only after about eight months after the crop has been shown. Therefore, much reliance cannot be placed at this belated inspection report.

31. Further, it is well established that defects in the seeds cannot be detected on the basis of visual inspection of the fields alone. On the other hand, visual inspection conducted by the Agricultural Officials shows that plants were infected. Moreover, complainants have not placed on record any data with regard to the yield of chillies for the previous years.

32. Another aspect to be noted in the present cases is that there has been violation of principles of natural justice. It is an admitted fact that before conducting the inspection of the fields of the farmers on 6.12.2006 as well as on 13/14.2.2007, no notice was given to the petitioner's company to join the inspection. Whatever inspection have been conducted on these two dates, the same were done at the back of the petitioner's company. There is also nothing on record to show that copy of these reports was ever supplied by the inspecting officials to the petitioner's company so as to give an opportunity to the petitioner's company to present its view. Under these circumstances, we hold that there has been violation of the principles of natural justice, for which respondents cannot derive any benefit.

33. None of the judgments cited by learned counsel for the respondents are applicable to the facts of the present case.

34. It is well settled that crop can be affected due to various reasons viz. poor quality of seeds, fertilizers, inadequate rainfall or irrigation, and also due to poor quality or inadequate or overdose of pesticides/insecticides. In the present cases, the respondents-farmers have miserably failed to prove that due to the defective seeds their crops have failed.

35. Under these circumstances, impugned order passed by the State Commission cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order passed by the State Commission and restore the order of the District Forum.

36. Accordingly, present petitions stand disposed off.

37. Parties shall bear their own costs.