Challenging the order dated 12.12.2011 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in Consumer Complaint No.891 of 2010 these two revision petitions have been filed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents Nos. 1-4/ complainants who are agriculturists owning agricultural lands in China Agiripalli village of Krishna District purchased black gram seeds procured and markted by OPs 1 & 2 through OP 5. They have sown these seeds in an extent of Ac.17.50 cents in their respective lands, applied fertilizers, water etc., however, they found that there was no flowering. Immediately they informed about it to the agricultural officers. The officials of OP-3 inspected the fields and were satisfied that they had sustained loss due to defective seed supplied to them. A certificate was also given by the V.R.O. to that effect. It was alleged in the complaint that they have sustained loss of @Rs.15,000/- per acre for an extent of Ac.17.50 cents which would come to Rs.2,62,500/-. Therefore, they claimed the said amount together with costs. OP 2 resisted the case by filing counter adopted by OP1 denying the allegations made in the complaint. They acted like carry forward agent. OP 3 is a federation constituted by the Govt. of India. All of them acted bonafidely in the interests of farming community. They sold the seed at 33.33% subsidy. In fact 1,437 complaints were received from the farmers. On that a team of officials of NAFED, officers of OPs 1 & 2, department of agriculture and the revenue department had made local enquiry into the matter and prepared a list of 679 eligible farmers to whom they decided to pay Rs.3,400/- per acre subject to purchase of 8 Kgs of seed per acre. There were some bogus complaints. As per the decision of the said team OPs 2 & 3 the present petitioners have contributed at 1/3 & 2/3 share respectively while paying compensation. The claim was bogus and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. OP 3 equally resisted the case. It alleged that it was not a necessary party nor liable to pay compensation. It had already compensated with its share to the farmers who had sustained loss as per the directions of Govt. of A.P. Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. The complainants in proof of their case filed affidavit evidence and got Exs.A1 to A12 marked while the OPs 1 to 4 filed their affidavit evidence and got Exs. B1 to B4 marked. The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complainants could not substantiate that they had sustained loss of crop and that their names did not find place in the list of farmers who had sustained loss and accordingly dismissed the complaint. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainants preferred the appeal before the State Commission being appeal No.891 of 2010. The State Commission vide its order dated 12.12.2011 accepted the appeal and passed the following order:- “15. In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the Dist. Forum. Consequently the complaint is allowed directing OPs 1 to 3 and 5 to pay Rs.59,500/- to the complainants with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of complaint viz., 30.10.2008 till the date of realization together with compensation of Rs.2,000/- each towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- each towards costs.” 4. Aggrieved with the order of the State Commission, opposite party No.1 & 2 have filed the revision petition No.1579 of 2012 and opposite party No.3 has filed revision petition No.1624 of 2012. 5. None appeared on behalf of the respondent/complainant farmers inspite of service of notice. Hence, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 17.11.2016. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the names of the complainants are not appearing in the list, prepared jointly by both the petitioners and the offices of the State Government, which was prepared to identify the farmers who have suffered loss due to sowing of these black gram seeds. 1437 farmer cases were examined and 679 farmers were found whose crop was damaged due to sowing of these gram seeds. It clearly means that the crop in the fields of these complainant farmers was not adversely affected. The State Commission has relied upon the report of the VRO who was independently not authorised to give any certificate of crop failure. The claim of the complainant is totally bogus and cannot be allowed. 7. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and have examined the material on record. It is seen that the case of the complainant is based on the certificate given by the VRO but neither of the petitioners have brought on record the copy of the VRO certificate. The following observation of the State Commission is quite important: “13. When the complainants have come up with a complaint that their names were not included, though they had suffered loss of crop, the opposite parties for the reasons best known, did not file the report that was prepared to show that they had inspected these crops and found to be in good condition. They ought to have filed the records to show that the complainants did not raise the crop as alleged by them. Having satisfied that the crops were failed and granted compensation to those farmers, and solely on the ground that their names were did not find a place in Ex.B1, the complainants could not be denied, more so, when they could prove by irrefutable documents viz., receipts issued by the dealer that they have purchased the black gram T9 seed and the Adangals maintained by the VRO to show that they have sown the seed and raised the crop in their respective fields, necessarily the opposite parties ought to have extended the very same benefit having given to other farmers who had sustained loss. The department that had paid compensation could have filed affidavit of the concerned V.A.O. alleging that the complainants have come up with a false case taking advantage of compensation that was paid to some other farmers. In the light of irrefutable documentary evidence, we are of the opinion that the complainants had suffered loss of crop and they are entitled to compensation.” 8. State Commission has based its decision on the fact that though the petitioners have claimed that the names of the complainant do not appear in the joint list prepared by the petitioners and the officials of the State Government but no proof has been filed to show that the fields of the complainants were also surveyed and their crop was not found damaged. There is no doubt that complainant also belong to the same village for which the report was prepared but nothing has been filed as evidence to prove that there was no loss to the complainant due to bad seeds. The loss has been verified by the certificate given by the VRO and the complainants have also filed their affidavits in support of their claim. In these circumstances, I do not see any reason to set aside the order of the State Commission as no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error is found in the impugned order which calls for any interference from this Commission. 9. Consequently, these revision petitions are dismissed. | 
