2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No

3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No First Appeal No.585 of 2018 Argued by:- For the appellant : None. For respondent Nos.1&2: Ms. Nisha, Advocate for Shri S.S. Sarwara, Advocate. For respondent Nos.3&4 : Shri Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT: All the above mentioned five (5) appeals are being decided by this common order as common questions of facts and law are involved in all these appeals and the same have been directed against the common order dated 12.9.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (in short, District Forum) whereby the complaints filed by complainants in all these appeals, who are farmers of Village Jalalpur, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, C.P. Act) were dismissed. Facts are taken from First Appeal No.585 of 2018.

2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Forum. Facts of the complaint:

3. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that on the assurance of agents of opposite parties that the seed of Chini variety of Muskmelon will give more produce than other varieties, the complainant along with other farmers of his village and other nearby villages purchased one kilogram seed of that variety from opposite parties Nos.1 and 2 on 17.2.2016, who are dealers of opposite parties Nos.3 and 4, for a total sum of 14,000/-, vide Invoice/Bill, First Appeal No.585 of 2018 Ex.C-1. The packing of said seed was of 25 grams per packet and, as such, the complainant purchased 40 packets of 25 grams each of said seed. The envelope in which the seed was packed has been annexed on the record as Ex.C-2. The complainant had sown the said seed in his fields; however, the crop of other varieties started giving fruits weighing 500 grams to 700 grams but the crop sown by the complainant failed to give produce and even flowers did not grow. The fruits, which had ripened, were black in colour and bitter in taste, which had no value in the market. Thereafter the complainant and other agriculturists of his village and other nearby villages came to know that the seed given to them was duplicate and of low quality and they were cheated by the opposite parties by receiving high price of the said seed. The complainant along with other agriculturists of Village Khokh and Kotli, Tehsil Nabha and of Village Jangpura, Jalalpur, Tehsil Rajpura gave a joint representation, Ex.C- 3, to the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, on 5.5.2016 mentioning therein that 1 kilogram seed was for 5 acres of land and they had spent 30,000/- per acre and the black and bitter fruit had no value in the market. It was further mentioned in that representation that in- spite of repeated requests the opposite parties failed to listen. Thereafter Representative of Agriculture Department inspected the spot on 6.5.2016 and gave his report, Ex.C-4 to the effect that the crop at the spot was without any disease and without insect and the crop was of Chini variety but the detailed report could not be given at that stage. Another report dated 6.5.2016, Ex.C-5, was given by a First Appeal No.585 of 2018 Committee constituted by the Agriculture Department after inspecting the spot and verifying all the facts and made it clear that the purchasing of the seed by the complainant and other agriculturists was duly recorded in the stock register of opposite parties Nos.1 and 2 and the crop was without any disease and insect. It was further mentioned in that report that the agriculturists had maintained the crops in a good manner but the fruit would ripe after two weeks. Another report dated 27.5.2016, Ex.C-6, was sent by the Deputy Director, Horticulture, Patiala to Deputy Commissioner, Patiala in which it is clearly mentioned that the fruit on the crop was black in colour and bitter in taste and the same was not having any rate in the market; as a result of which the agriculturists were put to monetary loss. It was further written in that report that the high breed of Chini Muskmelon was not approved by Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana and that the team of Department inspected the villages on 18.5.2016 when the Chini breed grown by complainant and other agriculturists had not started giving fruits due to non-ripening and breed of Madhu 149 and Muskan was being plucked by the other Agriculturists of the area. It was further mentioned in that report that the team again inspected the crops on 23.5.2016 and according to that report the Chini variety Muskmelon was plucked upto 50% when the other breeds had plucked upto 90% and the Chini crop had been prepared to give fruit after 90 days and the expected yield was of 55 quintals per acre. The other varieties were ready to pluck in a period of 60 days and First Appeal No.585 of 2018 the yield was of 125 quintals per acre and was selling the same @ 12/- to 15/- per kilograms, whereas the Chini variety had given the yield of 55 quintals per acre and was sold @ 3/- to 5/- per kilogram and accordingly net loss of the complainant was assessed to the tune of 6,00,000/- due to less yield and less rate than the other varieties of equal rate of seeds. It is further averred that in the month of May it was a peak season but at that time the seed sown by the complainant had given yield only upto 50% when the other seeds gave yield of 90% and accordingly a great loss had been caused to the complainant due to cheating of the opposite parties in supplying the duplicate as well as low quality seed. It is further averred that some of the agriculturists again moved an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala on 31.7.2016, Ex.C-7 and the Agriculture Officer, Patiala, issued letter No.2427 dated 31.5.2016, Ex.C-8, to M/s Kissan Sewa Centre for suspending its licence bearing No.489 dated 2.5.2005 till further orders. Thus, it is clear that a great and high injustice has been caused to the complainant and the other agriculturists. The complainant along with other producers of Muskmelon moved complaints to the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala on 31.5.2016. The complainant again approached the opposite parties to make the payment of seed purchased from them and monetary loss caused to him but they flatly refused to do so. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties the consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum for grant of compensation of 6,00,000/- for monetary First Appeal No.585 of 2018 loss etc., 20,000/-, as compensation for mental tension and 10,000/-, as litigation expenses along with interest @ 18% per month. Defence of opposite parties Nos.1 and 2:

4. Upon notice opposite parties 1 and 2 and opposite party No.4 appeared. Opposite parties Nos.1 and 2 filed their joint reply and opposite party No.4 filed its separate reply. However, opposite party No.3 did not appear despite service and, as such, was proceeded against ex parte by the District Forum, vide its order dated 29.11.2016. In their joint reply opposite parties Nos.1 and 2 took preliminary objections to the effect that the complaint is not maintainable. The District Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint. The complainant has remedy to approach the competent Court under the Seeds Act, 1966. Opposite parties Nos.1 and 2 are the dealers/stockiest of opposite party No.3 and have no liability as alleged in the complaint. The complainant had purchased the sealed packing of seeds containing 25 grams seeds in each packet. There is no contract of marketing between opposite parties Nos.1 and 2 and opposite parties Nos.3 & 4. On merits, it was admitted that the complainant purchased Chini variety of Muskmelon seeds from opposite parties Nos.1 and 2. However, they never assured that the variety of seeds would give more produce and would fetch more rate in the market. It was denied that they supplied duplicate seeds to the complainant of very low quality. Opposite parties Nos.1 and 2 supplied the seeds, which were supplied by First Appeal No.585 of 2018 opposite parties Nos.3 and 4 in its safe and intact position. There is no tampering on the packet of the seeds. The said seeds were of high quality and the complainant after satisfying himself purchased the seeds from them. It was further stated that the license of opposite parties Nos.1 and 2 was wrongly suspended and the same was restored by the Director, Agriculture Department, Punjab. Denying all other averments made in the complaint and denying any deficiency in service on their part a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made. Defence of opposite party No.4:

5. In its separate reply filed on 16.5.2017 opposite party No.4 (though it is written as reply on behalf of opposite parties Nos.3 and

4) took preliminary objections to the effect that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant does not come in the definition of consumer. The complainant has already exhausted his remedies by filing other complaints, as such, the complaint is not maintainable and is an abuse of process of the Court. The District Forum does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the issue relates to quality of seeds, which is absolutely governed by the provisions of Seeds Act, 1966 and any complaint about the sale or supply of defective seeds can be filed only under Seeds Act and not under C.P. Act. On merits, it is admitted that opposite parties Nos.1 and 2 are dealers of opposite parties Nos.3 and 4, which is a reputed Company. It is denied that any assurance was given to the complainant that the variety would give more yield. The complainant First Appeal No.585 of 2018 at his own had purchased the seeds from the opposite parties after verifying the quality from the market and other fellow agriculturists from other Villages as the result of the seeds sold by opposite parties was very much promising. It was further averred that the sale made by the opposite parties was as per the schedule and fixed rates and the complainant after satisfying himself from the market had purchased the seeds at that rate. Before filing the consumer complaint the complainant along with some other agriculturists had filed a complaint before Agriculture Officer, Rajpura, who got inspected the spot through Horticulture Development Officer on 21.4.2016 and it is mentioned in his report that the fruits had started growing out from the standing plants. Thereafter the Horticulture Department made other three inspections on 6.5.2016, 18.5.2016 and 23.5.2016. It was clearly reported that 50% of the crop of the fruit had already been harvested. The report dated 6.5.2016 clearly says that the crop was likely to give bumper yield as there were 4-5 fruits on a plant and ample bearing of flowers. It was also observed in that report that since the fruit grown was unripe, it may take two weeks to ripe and only thereafter its taste could be ascertained. It was further observed that the colour of the unripe fruit was green and not black as alleged by the complainant. The report bearing No.1750 dated 27.5.2016 is the same report which was made after compiling four inspections. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made. First Appeal No.585 of 2018 Evidence of the Parties:

6. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his own affidavit as Ex.CA along with documents i.e. photocopy of Retail Invoice dated 17.2.2016 as Ex.C-1, envelope packing as Ex.C-2, photocopy of complaint dated 5.5.2016 as Ex.C3, photocopy of Report of Krishi Vigyan Kender, Patiala as Ex.C-4, photocopy of Inspection Report dated 6.5.2016 as Ex.C-5, photocopy of report dated 27.5.2016 as Ex.C-6, photocopy of Report dated 31.5.2016 as Ex.C7 and photocopy of letter dated 31.5.2016 as Ex.C-8. The complainant also tendered in evidence affidavit of Suraj Bhan son of Charan Dass, Proprietor of Shankar Trading Company as Ex.CB.

7. Opposite party No.4 filed the affidavit of its Manager dated 8.12.2017/8.1.2018 as Ex.OPA. Opposite parties Nos.1 and 2 also filed affidavit of its Sole Proprietor, Jasmer Singh dated 4.1.2018, as Ex.OPB along with documents i.e. copy of joint complaint dated 5.5.2016 as Ex.OP1, copy of report dated 27.5.2016 as Ex.OP2, Copy of submission of Proposal for Approval of Research Variety as Ex.OP3, License dated 28.10.2015 as Ex.OP4, another license dated 28.4.2014 in favour of M/s Kissan Sewa Centre No.5672 as Ex.OP-5, Copy of License dated 27.10.2018 as Ex.OP-6, copy of Principal Certificate as Ex.OP-7, copy of letter dated 3.5.2016 as Ex.OP-8 and copy of another letter dated 29.12.2015 as Ex.OP-9. First Appeal No.585 of 2018 Finding of the District Forum:

8. After going through the evidence tendered by the parties and after hearing the learned counsel for them, the District Forum dismissed the complaint, vide impugned order. Hence, this appeal.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case. We have also gone through the written arguments submitted by the parties. Contentions of the Parties:

10. In the written arguments it has been submitted that the complainant purchased one kilogram of muskmelon seeds of Chini variety from opposite parties Nos.1 and 2, who are dealers of opposite parties Nos.3 and 4, vide Invoice Retail, Ex.C-1, for a total sum of 14,000/- and had sown the same in his five acres of land. The quality of the seed was very low; as a result of which there was 50% yield of fruit and that too was of black colour and bitter in taste. This has been proved by various reports submitted by the concerned authorities including Agriculture Department and Horticulture Department. As per report dated 12.5.2016, Ex.C-4, by the Agriculture Department the variety of Chini was not approved by the Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana. In another report dated 27.5.2016, Ex.C-6, of Deputy Director, Horticulture, Patiala it was reported that other varieties were ready to pluck in a period of 60 days and gave yield of 125 quintals per acre and was selling @ 12/- to 15/- per kilogram whereas the Chini variety gave yield of 55 quintals per acre and was sold @ 3/- to 5/- per kilogram and, as First Appeal No.585 of 2018 such, net loss of 6,00,000/- was caused to the complainant. Even Agriculture Officer, Patiala, suspended the license of opposite parties Nos.1 and 2 till further orders, which was conveyed, vide letter No.2427 dated 31.5.2016, Ex.C-8. However, the District Forum has failed to appreciate the reports available on the record in right perspective as a result of which great injustice has been caused to the complainant and the other farmers.

10. Per contra, the learned counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 and

2 argued on the similar lines as have been made in their reply and defended the order passed by the District Forum. It was prayed that there is no merit in the present appeals and the same are liable to be dismissed.

11. Similarly the learned counsel for opposite parties Nos.3 and 4 argued on the similar lines as have been made in the reply filed by opposite party No.4 and defended the order passed by the District Forum. It was prayed that there is no merit in the present appeals and the same may be dismissed with cost. Consideration of Contentions:

12. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised before us by the learned counsel for the parties.

13. Before dealing with other contentions it would be appropriate to examine the contention of the opposite parties whether the complainant is a consumer and whether the complaint under the C.P. Act is maintainable as there is alternative remedy available to him under the Seeds Act, 1966? Admittedly, the complainant had First Appeal No.585 of 2018 purchased the muskmelon seed of Chini variety from the opposite parties at the rate of 14,000/- per kilogram. The said seed was sown by the complainant in his fields to get the yield as promised by the opposite parties. The complainant is a farmer and agriculturist and is sowing the crops for earning his livelihood. There is no element of commercial nature in purchasing the seeds and further selling the crop/agriculture produce to a particular person. Once the source of income of the complainant is agriculture to earn his and his familys livelihood, it cannot be treated as commercial project. Moreover, these issues are no more res integra as the same have already been decided by the Honble Supreme Court in National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. M. Madhusudhan Reddy and another 2012 (1) RCR (Civil) 838 (SC). In view of this, it is held that the complainant falls within the definition of consumer, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act and the complaint is maintainable under the C.P. Act.

14. Admittedly the complainant had purchased one kilogram Muskmelon Chini variety seed from opposite parties Nos.1 and 2 i.e. Kissan Sewa Centre, vide Retail Invoice, Ex.C-1, which was the product of opposite parties Nos.3 and 4, for a sum of 14,000/- and had sown the same in his five acres of land as 200 grams of seed was required to be sown in one acre of land. However, the fruit of the crop was black in colour and bitter in taste, which had no value in the market. Therefore a joint complaint was lodged by the farmers of the village of the complainant and of nearby villages dated 5.5.2016, First Appeal No.585 of 2018 Ex.C-3, to the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, for supplying spurious seeds, which resulted into losses. The Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, directed the Horticulture Department to examine the matter and in compliance of the same a report was sent to Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, vide letter No.1750 dated 27.5.2016, Ex.C-6, by the Horticulture Department in which it is mentioned that the said hybrid was not recommended by the Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana. In the said letter it has been further mentioned that Horticulture Development Officer, Rajpura, had inspected the standing crops of 10 complainants on 21.4.2016 and he found that the fruit had started growing. It is further mentioned that a team constituted by the Chief Agriculture Officer, Patiala had visited the villages of the complainants on 6.5.2016 and after inspecting the standing crops and during the course of inquiry it was found that the seed was purchased in the second week of February 2016. The vines of muskmelon were good and there was no disease or insect attack on the same. The farmers had well maintained the crops. There were bumper flowers on the vines. There were 4 to 5 small and big fruits on one vine. The fruit at that time was unripe and was green in colour due to which nothing could be ascertained about the taste of fruit. If the environmental conditions remain perfect, then there was possibility of ripening of the fruits after two weeks. On 18.5.2016 the said team again visited the villages of the complainants and found that the fruits had not yet ripen and net had been grown on the fruits. However, the fruits started ripening. But First Appeal No.585 of 2018 the harvesting of fruits of seeds of other companies i.e. Hybrid Madhu 149 and Muskan had already started. On 23.5.2016 the team inspected the fields of the complainants and found that 50% fruits had been harvested from the vines and there was mixture of 2% in the vines, whereas there was 90% harvesting of the fruits in respect of the hybrid of other Companies. It was reported that the hybrid seed of Chini variety of Somani Kanak Seedz Pvt. Ltd. had ripen for harvesting after 90 days and the yield was 55 quintals per acre approximately. In this manner it becomes crystal clear that the seed was of sub-standard quality, which was supplied by opposite parties, which has resulted into the loss to the farmers, including the complainant.

15. Some of the farmers again made a complaint dated 31.5.2016, Ex.C-7, to the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala and requested him that the reports were prepared in the fields in their presence by the inspecting teams. It was also stated that even a single muskmelon was not in resemblance to the muskmelon shown on the pamphlet, Ex.C-2. The fruit had not grown up in time. The fruit which had grown in the fields had no market value. A request was made to take appropriate legal action against the opposite parties. It is pertinent to mention here that even Chief Agriculture Officer, Patiala had suspended the license of Kissan Sewa Kender, Rajpura till further orders on the ground that the complainants had sown the Chini variety of muskmelon seed after purchasing the same from opposite parties Nos.1 and 2 in their fields but the fruits did not grow First Appeal No.585 of 2018 in time. The said order was conveyed to opposite party No.1, vide letter dated 31.5.2016, Ex.C-8, by the Chief Agriculture Officer.

16. As per the arguments of the learned counsel for opposite parties the seed was of the best quality and certified and could be sown in the area of Punjab also. As per the technical report of Krishi Vigyan Centre, Patiala, Ex.C-4, it has been written that the variety of Chini hybrid seed of muskmelon was not a recommended variety by the Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana. However, on the back of envelope packet Ex.C-2 it is recommended for Punjab area also. Furthermore, opposite parties Nos.3 and 4 have not produced any evidence on record that they had conducted trial of the said seed in the area of Punjab and the same was found fit for sowing in the said area. Once the Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana is not recommending such seed in the area of Punjab, then certainly it can be held that the seed in question was not recommended for the area of Punjab. It is wrongly written on the envelope that same can be cultivated in Punjab and such writing is unfair trade practice.

17. In view of our above discussion, it is held that the seed supplied by opposite parties Nos.1 and 2, which was the product of opposite parties Nos.3 and 4 to the complainant and other farmers was of substandard quality; as a result of which the complainant and other farmers have suffered financial loss as well as harassment and mental agony. It certainly amounts to deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties First Appeal No.585 of 2018 for which the complainant and other farmers are liable to be compensated.

18. Now coming to the quantum of compensation. Admittedly the complainant had purchased 1 kilogram of muskmelon seed and had sown the same in his five acres of land. As per the report of Deputy Director, Horticulture, Patiala sent by him to the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, vide letter dated 27.5.2016, Ex.C-6, the approximate yield was 55 quintals per acre. If it is so, then the total yield out of 5 acres of land comes to 275 quintals. So far as the rate at which the said muskmelon crop was sold is concerned, the complainant himself placed on record the affidavit of Suraj Bhan, Proprietor of Shankar Trading Company, Sabzi Mandi, Ambala, who deposed in para no.4 that the chini variety Muskmelon was sold @

3 to 5/- per kilogram as the fruit of that variety was black and bitter and the other varieties of muskmelon i.e. Madhu 149 and Muskan were sold @ 12/- to 15/- per kilogram. No evidence in rebuttal has been produced by the opposite parties. In these circumstances if we take average of these prices, then the rate at which muskmelon of chini variety was sold comes to 4/- per kilogram and the rate at which other varieties of muskmelons were sold comes to 13.50P per kilogram. Therefore, there was a loss of 9.50 per kilogram to the complainant and other farmers. Hence the total loss suffered by the complainant comes to 275 quintals x 9.50 = 2,61,250/- on account of defective seed sold by the opposite parties. In addition to this the complainant must have suffered harassment, mental tension First Appeal No.585 of 2018 and mental agony for which he is held entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.

19. In view of our above discussion, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Resultantly the complaint filed by the complainant is allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-

i) to pay 2,61,250/- to the complainant on account of loss of crop suffered by him along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 8.9.2016 till actual payment; and ii) to pay 33,000/-, as litigation costs, both before the District Forum as well as before this Commission. All the opposite parties are directed to comply with the above order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order jointly and severally. First Appeal No.586 of 2018:

20. In this case the complainant, Sukhwinder Singh, purchased

650 grams of muskmelon chini variety seed for 91,00/-, vide Bill dated 17.2.2016, Ex.C-1. It has not been mentioned in the complaint that in how many acres of land he had sown the said seed but since

200 grams of seed were required to be sown in one acre, therefore, it is held that the complainant had sown the said seed in 3.1/4th acres of land. He claimed a sum of 4,00,000/-, as compensation. Rest of the averments made in the complaint in present appeal are the same as have been made in the complaint i.e. Consumer First Appeal No.585 of 2018 Complaint No.363 of 2016 out of which FA No.585 of 2018 has arisen. The stand taken by the opposite parties in their replies is also the same. Similar arguments, oral as well as written, have been raised by the parties as have been raised in CC No.363 of 2016 out of which FA No.585 of 2018 has arisen. In view of this, this appeal is also allowed in the same terms as FA No.585 of 2018.

21. In this case the total yield of the complainant comes to 55 quintals x 3.1/4 acres = 179 quintals approximately. Thus, the loss suffered by the complainant comes to 179 quintals x 9.50 = 1,70,050/-.

22. Resultantly the complaint i.e. CC No.354 of 2016 is also allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-

i) to pay 1,70,050/- to the complainant on account of loss of crop suffered by him along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 8.9.2016 till actual payment; and ii) to pay 33,000/-, as litigation costs, both before the District Forum as well as before this Commission. All the opposite parties are directed to comply with the above order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order jointly and severally. First Appeal No.587 of 2018:

23. In this case the complainant, Manjit Singh, purchased 500 grams of muskmelon chini variety seed for 7,000/-, vide Bill dated 17.2.2016, Ex.C-1. It has not been mentioned in the complaint that First Appeal No.585 of 2018 in how many acres of land he had sown the said seed but since 200 grams of seed were required to be sown in one acre, therefore, it is held that the complainant had sown the said seed in two and a half acres of land. He claimed a sum of 3,00,000/-, as compensation. Rest of the averments made in the complaint in present appeal are the same as have been made in the complaint i.e. Consumer Complaint No.363 of 2016 out of which FA No.585 of 2018 has arisen. The stand taken by the opposite parties in their replies is also the same. Similar arguments, oral as well as written, have been raised by the parties as have been raised in CC No.363 of 2016 out of which FA No.585 of 2018 has arisen. In view of this, this appeal is also allowed in the same terms as FA No.585 of 2018.

24. In this case the total yield of the complainant comes to 55 quintals x 2.1/2 acres = 138 quintals approximately. Thus, the loss suffered by the complainant comes to 138 quintals x 9.50 = 1,31,100/-.

25. Resultantly the complaint i.e. CC No.360 of 2016 is also allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-

i) to pay 1,31,100/- to the complainant on account of loss of crop suffered by him along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 8.9.2016 till actual payment; and ii) to pay 33,000/-, as litigation costs, both before the District Forum as well as before this Commission. First Appeal No.585 of 2018 All the opposite parties are directed to comply with the above order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order jointly and severally. First Appeal No.588 of 2018:

26. In this case the complainant, Paramjit Singh, purchased 250 grams of muskmelon chini variety seed for 3,500/-, vide Bill dated 15.2.2016, Ex.C-1. It has not been mentioned in the complaint that in how many acres of land he had sown the said seed but since 200 grams of seed were required to be sown in one acre, therefore, it is held that the complainant had sown the said seed in 1.1/4 acres of land. He claimed a sum of 1,50,000/-, as compensation. Rest of the averments made in the complaint in present appeal are the same as have been made in the complaint i.e. Consumer Complaint No.363 of 2016 out of which FA No.585 of 2018 has arisen. The stand taken by the opposite parties in their replies is also the same. Similar arguments, oral as well as written, have been raised by the parties as have been raised in CC No.363 of 2016 out of which FA No.585 of 2018 has arisen. In view of this, this appeal is also allowed in the same terms as FA No.585 of 2018.

27. In this case the total yield of the complainant comes to 55 quintals x 1.1/4 acres = 69 quintals approximately. Thus, the loss suffered by the complainant comes to 69 quintals x 9.50 = 65,500/-.

28. Resultantly the complaint i.e. CC No.357 of 2016 is also allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:- First Appeal No.585 of 2018

i) to pay 65,500/- to the complainant on account of loss of crop suffered by him along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 8.9.2016 till actual payment; and ii) to pay 33,000/-, as litigation costs, both before the District Forum as well as before this Commission. All the opposite parties are directed to comply with the above order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order jointly and severally. First Appeal No.589 of 2018:

29. In this case the complainant, Jaswant Singh, purchased 750 grams of muskmelon chini variety seed for 10,500/-, vide Bill dated 17.2.2016, Ex.C-1. It has not been mentioned in the complaint that in how many acres of land he had sown the said seed but since 200 grams of seed were required to be sown in one acre, therefore, it is held that the complainant had sown the said seed in 3.3/4 acres of land. He claimed a sum of 4,50,000/-, as compensation. Rest of the averments made in the complaint in present appeal are the same as have been made in the complaint i.e. Consumer Complaint No.363 of 2016 out of which FA No.585 of 2018 has arisen. The stand taken by the opposite parties in their replies is also the same. Similar arguments, oral as well as written, have been raised by the parties as have been raised in CC No.363 of 2016 out of which FA No.585 of 2018 has arisen. In view of this, this appeal is also allowed in the same terms as FA No.585 of 2018. First Appeal No.585 of 2018

30. In this case the total yield of the complainant comes to 55 quintals x 3.3/4 acres = 207 quintals approximately. Thus, the loss suffered by the complainant comes to 207 quintals x 9.50 = 1,96,650/-.

31. Resultantly the complaint i.e. CC No.361 of 2016 is also allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-

i) to pay 1,96,650/- to the complainant on account of loss of crop suffered by him along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 8.9.2016 till actual payment; and ii) to pay 33,000/-, as litigation costs, both before the District Forum as well as before this Commission. All the opposite parties are directed to comply with the above order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order jointly and severally.