ORDER (ORAL)

               This Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by a producer of PHB-71 Pioneer Brand Paddy seeds, is directed against the order dated 26.09.2011, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Panchkula (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No.1486 of 2006.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 12.05.2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint No.667 of 2005.  By the said order, while allowing the Complaint filed by the first Respondent herein, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner in supplying sub-standard aforenoted paddy seeds, resulting in lower germination (gathering), the District Forum had directed the Petitioner to pay to the Complainant a lump sum amount of ₹1,00,000/-, as compensation for loss suffered by him due to supply of defective seeds, with litigation expenses, quantified at ₹5,000/-.

               The main grievance of the Petitioner herein is that for coming to the conclusion that the germination (gathering) of the said seeds, was much less than the expected yield, both the Fora below have erred in ignoring the two inspection reports, viz. dated 07.06.2005 and 20.06.2005 submitted by a Senior District Extension Officer and the Seed Testing Laboratory, Kaddapa, Andhra Pradesh, respectively and therefore, the finding of supplying defective seeds to the Complainant deserves to be set aside.

               Despite service, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the Respondents.  Accordingly, we have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

               Having perused the afore-noted reports as also the report dated 07.06.2005, submitted by the Agricultural Development Officer in the office of Deputy Director, Yamuna Nagar, we are of the view that there is some substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner to the extent that the Fora below should have dealt with the aforesaid reports in a little more detail.  Nevertheless, regard being had to the fact that the finding regarding supply of defective seeds on the part of the Petitioner is based on the report submitted by an official in the Office of Deputy Director, Agriculture, it cannot be held that the said report was irrelevant, merely because it was not well-reasoned.  Any farmer, placed in the situation, the Complainant was based, is expected to approach the Government Agriculture Department, a Government agency, expected to protect the interest of a farmer, who is supposed to guide the farmer in this behalf.  If the said Agency fails to perform its function properly, a farmer cannot be made to suffer for Agency’s lapse.  Furthermore, in the instant case, in the inspection report dated 07.06.2005, it has been clearly noticed that the average germination was 64.47% as against the expected germination of 89%.  In the light of the said report as also the fact that a paltry lump sum amount of ₹1,00,000/-, without any interest thereon, has been awarded in favour of the Complainant, in the Complaint filed as far back as in the year 2005, we do not find it to be a fit case for exercise of limited Revisional Jurisdiction vested in this Commission under the Act.

               Consequently, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly.