reaping first and other was taking time. The Complainant approached Opposite Party No.1, who admitted that they had received same complaint from 2/3 customers and assured the Complainant that they were in touch with Shakti Vardhak Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd./Opposite Party No.2, who would bear the loss. Due to poor quality, the crop of the Complainant could not be sold. On 25.10.2018, the Complainant again approached Opposite Party No.1 and informed that he had suffered loss of about Rs.2,50,000/-, but nothing was done by the Opposite Parties. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, Complainant filed Consumer Complaint No.273 of 2018 before the District Forum with following prayer: -

"A) To pay Rs.4145/- on account of purchasing the seeds of paddy crops of type P.B. 1401 through Bill no. 1683 dated 07-05-2018 from the opposite party no. 1.

B) To pay Rs.2,50,000/- on account of loss of paddy crops due to defective and mixed quality seeds which were sown by the complainant in his field;

C) To pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant on account of harassment, agony and tension occurred due to the act and conduct of the opposite parties; D To pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses."

3. Complaint was contested by the Opposite Parties on the ground of maintainability. It was stated that the Complainant purchased the seeds for commercial purpose. On merit, it was stated that the Complainant had not got the seeds tested from any prescribed laboratory to prove that the seeds were of inferior quality. The Agriculture Officer had not issued notice to them at the time of inspection of field of the Complainant. The Agriculture Officer had prepared a false report in connivance with the Complainant. Opposite Party No.1 also took the ground that they purchased the seed from Opposite Party No.2 and sold the same to the Complainant in the same condition. Opposite Party No.2 stated that the seeds were properly tested by the Seed Testing Laboratory, Karnal and the said laboratory had also issued the purity report.

4. After hearing the learned Counsel for the Parties and perusing the record, the District Forum, vide order dated 25.11.2019 allowed the Complaint in the following terms: -

"After considering all facts, record on file and the law, this Forum is of the opinion that seed sold to the complainant was defective and mixed with some other variety. Hence, complaint of the complainant is allowed and opposite parties jointly and severally are directed to pay Rs.1,40,000/- to the complainant as loss of crop with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase of seed i.e. 07.05.2018 till actual realization alongwith Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment alongwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. This order is directed to be complied with within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, complainant shall be entitled to proceed u/s25 & 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Copy of order be

2

supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room."

5. Aggrieved by the orders of the District Forum dated 25.11.2019, Opposite Parties filed First Appeals before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide order dated 01.10.2020, dismissed the Appeals.

6. Hence, the instant Revision Petitions by Opposite Party No.2/Shakti Vardhak Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd.

7. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner on admission and carefully perused the record. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned orders are contrary to the record. Fora below failed to properly appreciate the report of Seed Testing Laboratory and wrongly held that the seeds manufactured by the Petitioner were of inferior quality. Inspection was conducted by the Seed Testing Laboratory, Karnal without any notice to the Petitioner, in violation of the principle of natural justice. Learned Counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Shamsher Singh vs. M/s Bagri Beej Bhandar and Anr. in RP No.2597 of 2012, decided on 11.09.2013 and submitted that the report of the Seed Testing Laboratory, Karnal was not substantiated by any other report.

8. Facts of the case are that the Complainant purchased paddy seeds from M/s Kissan Beej Bhandaar, who assured the Complainant that the seeds were of good quality. The Complainant sowed the seeds in his field. He noticed that the paddy crop was not of the same quality as that of P.B. 1401 seed. The Agriculture Team observed that the seeds sown by the Complainant were of mixed type and did not match the quality. Opposite Party No.1 admitted that they had received same complaint from 2/3 customers and assured the Complainant that the manufacturer/Opposite Party No.2 would bear the loss, but nothing was done by the Opposite Parties.

9. The fact that the seeds were of inferior quality was also corroborated by the admission of Opposite Party No.1, who stated that they had received the same complaint from 2/3 customers. Agriculture Officer, Giddarbaha also gave a report to the effect that the seeds were of inferior quality. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has cited the judgment of this Commission in Shamsher Singh (supra). However, Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the National Seeds Corp. Ltd. v. M. Madhusudhan Reddy, (2012) 2 SCC 506, dealing with a similar matter, held 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." In the instant case, the seeds were found defective and this fact was also proved by the Agriculture Officer, Giddarbaha. Both the Fora below have given concurrent findings of fact. We do not find any material irregularity in the orders passed by the Fora below. Also, Jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21 (b) is very limited. This Commission is not required to re-appreciate and reassess the evidences and reach to its own conclusion. The Court can intervene only when the Petitioner succeeds in showing that the Fora below have wrongly exercised its jurisdiction or there is a miscarriage of justice. It was so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra)

3

Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 has held as under: -

"13. Also, 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."

10. Same principle has been reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. and Ors. (2016

8 SCC 286 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"23. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in their or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons."

11. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of both Fora below. Petitioner has failed to point any illegality or material irregularity in the order passed by the State Commission, warranting interference in exercise of Revision Jurisdiction of this Commission. Revision Petitions are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

......................

C. VISWANATH

PRESIDING MEMBER

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

RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA

MEMBER

4