Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 25.7.2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Circuit Bench at Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”), whereby the Appeals preferred by the Respondents/Complainants herein have been allowed and the amount, as prayed for, has been granted along with compensation of ₹25,000/- for physical and mental harassment and litigation cost of ₹10,000/-.  It may be mentioned here that the Respondents/Complainants had purchased Soyabean seeds from the Petitioner herein for being used in cultivation and producing crops and earning profits.  The seeds appear to be of poor quality and germinated to the extent of 25% to 30%.  An inspection was done by the Competent Authority in the presence of the representative of the Petitioner herein after actually paying visit to the land of the Complainants/ Respondents in which the seeds were sown by them and the report, which was given, contained the signature of the Authorities, representative of the Petitioner and also the witness in whose presence the crop was inspected.  In the report it was stated that the seeds were of poor quality and germination was only to the extent of 32% to 35%. 

        The District Forum, on a preliminary objection raised by the Petitioner that the Complainants/Respondents herein are not consumers as they are engaged in commercial activities, dismissed the Complaint by holding that the Complainants are not consumers as they are engaged in commercial activity.  Feeling aggrieved, the Complainants/Respondents preferred Appeals before the State Commission.  The State Commission, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s National Seeds Corporation Ltd. vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr. reported in (2012) 2 SCC 506, held that the Complainants/Respondents herein are consumers.  The report given by the Authorities and representatives of the Respondents, wherein it has been mentioned that the germination of the seeds was to the extent of 32% to 35% only, was not challenged by the Petitioner before the State Commission and therefore, the report was accepted.  It proves that the seeds were of poor quality and germination was to the extent of 32% to 35% only.  So far as compensation is concerned, the State Commission had accepted the claim made by the Complainants in Para-11 and 14 of the Complaints and awarded the same.  Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Para-11 and 14 of the Complaints had been specifically denied in the Written Version filed by the Petitioner and therefore, in the absence of any other material on record, the State Commission was not justified in awarding such a huge compensation.  We may mention here that except for making a mere denial of the averments made in Para-11 and 14 of the Complaints, the Petitioner did not produce any other evidence to substantiate its claim that the Complainants/Respondents had not suffered any loss or the amount of compensation claimed is highly inflated.  The State Commission in Para-12 of the impugned order has dealt with the claim made by the Complainants in the following manner :

The appellants have given detail of loss suffered by them in their respective complaint. They deducted the income they got from the seeds which  they had sown  in their land during  same season,  subsequent to the  non- germination  of the aforesaid  defective seeds and  thus  after deducting  said  income  which they  got from their  own seeds, they made  claimed for loss.  In our view the claim made for compensation due to loss suffered by the appellant can be accepted without any hesitation.  The original complainants/appellants  in their respective complaint has  given details  of area  of the land  in which  soybean seeds were sowed, expenses incurred for sowing  the said seeds , loss of yield due to short germination  of seeds and  market price  of soyabean  seeds produced by them. There is no reason to disbelieve the same.   Therefore, we hold that compensation claimed in each of the complaint by the appellant for loss suffered by them deserve to be granted with interest.  Moreover, we also find that the compensation of Rs.25,000/- for physical and mental  harassment and  litigation cost  of Rs.10,000/- deserve to be granted  to  each of the appellant. Thus disagreeing  with the submission  made in the  written  notes of argument  by the respondent’s advocate  and  for the aforesaid  reasons  we pass the following order.

        On perusal of the aforesaid para, we are of the considered opinion that in the absence of any material or evidence produced by the Petitioner, the State Commission has rightly accepted the claim made by the Complainants/Respondents herein and awarded the same.  We may also mention here that even otherwise, the Complaints are of the year 2011 and about 7 years have passed and it would serve no fruitful purpose in remanding the matters to the State Commission for deciding the question of compensation, especially when the Complainants/Respondents are farmers.

        The Revision Petitions fail and are dismissed.