Per Mrs. M. Shreesha, Presiding Member The delay in filing these Revision Petitions is sufficiently explained in the Affidavits and is condoned. 2. Challenge in these Revision Petitions under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short “the Act”) is to the orders dated 27.02.2017, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal Nos. 748, 750, 762 and 770 of 2015 preferred by Karnool Seeds Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the Seeds Company”). By the impugned order, the State has concurred with the finding of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (hereinafter referred to as “the District Forum”) with respect to deficiency of service, but has modified the compensation awarded as observed as follows: “In the report (Annexure A-12), it was stated that germination of the seed was 30-50% less than normal, so, it can be said that loss suffered by the complainant was 50% of the produce of the crop. Per Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited (Annexure-20), the average yield of Kharif (cotton) is 8 quintals per acre. As per Market-wise Daily Report of 2012 (Annexure A-21), by calculation, the average price of cotton in the year 2012 was Rs.4318/- per quintal in Haryana. For convenience, the figure is rounded off to Rs.4300/- per quintal. Since the loss was 50%, so, it has to be calculated that complainant had suffered loss of 4 quintals of cotton crop because the average yield was 8 quintals per acre. The complainant had sown the seed in his 37 kanal and 5 marla land, that is 4 acre 5 kanal and 5 marla. By calculating the loss it comes to Rs.17,200/- per acre, that is, 4300 X 4. Thus, the complainant is entitled to Rs.80,087/- (68,000 + 10,750+537) from the appellant. Accordingly, the appellant is directed to pay Rs.80,087/- to the complainant within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the appellant shall pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the awarded amount till realization to the complainant. Since, it has been held that Krishi Vikas Kender was not responsible for the supply of defective seed, so, question of deficiency in service on its part does not arise. Accordingly, the impugned order qua Krishi Vikas Kender is set aside.” 3. Since all these Revision Petitions pertain to common facts and are against the same Opposite Parties, all the Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common order. Revision Petition No. 3170 of 2017 is being taken as a lead case. 4. The facts in brief are that the Complainant along with other 23 farmers purchased cotton seeds of Ramya Bt-2 from Krishi Vikas Kendra (hereinafter referred to as “the Dealer”) arrayed as the Second Opposite Party in the main Complaint for his land measuring 37 Kanal and 5 Marla. It is averred that the Complainant purchased cotton seed for ₹8,000/- vide bill No. 2113 and that the dealer did not issue the bills for the purchased seeds on the exact date of purchase to the Complainant and the other farmers but thereafter on 11.09.2012, issued the said bill. It is averred that the seeds did not germinate to the Complainant’s satisfaction and therefore, he approached the Deputy Director, Agriculture Department, Sonipat and a team was constituted comprising of a specialist (Agronomy), Block Agriculture Officer, Sonipat and Agriculture Development Officer Gohana, who inspected the fields and finalised a report dated 06.11.2012 about the poor germination thereafter the Complainant and other farmers requested both the Opposite Parties to reimburse the amount paid and pay compensation, but there was no response. Hence, the Complaint seeking direction to the Seeds Company and the dealer to pay an amount of ₹1,80,000/- for the crop and financial loss together with compensation and costs. 5. The Seeds Company filed their Written Version before the District Forum denying that the dealer had sold the said seeds to the Complainant; that the cotton seeds were never sown in May/ June when they ought to have been sown as the germination would take place within 10 days of the sowing, but the alleged Inspection Report is dated 22.10.2012, which proves that the cotton seeds were sown in the first week of October, 2012 as the final product had to be obtained by December 2012. It is also averred that the germination of seeds depends on several other factors and there is no deficiency of service on behalf of the Seeds Company as the Complainants could not prove the defect and further they did not sow the seeds in the proper season and obtained back dated bills. 6. It is also pleaded that the Seeds Company sold the cotton seeds KCH-707-BG-II Ramya in its own brand name and entered into an Agreement dated 28.03.2012 with M/s Kaveri Seeds Company Limited, which were later sold to the dealer on 31.03.2012, 04.04.2012 and finally on 19.05.2012. 7. The Dealer filed his Written Version reiterating that the Complainant sown the seeds in the wrong season and that there is no evidence with respect to bill having been given belatedly. It is denied that the seeds were purchased from the Dealer. 8. Based on the evidence adduced the District Forum allowed the Complaint directing the Seeds Company to pay an amount of ₹25,000/- per acre to the Complainant for having supplied substandard and inferior quality of seeds and directed the Dealer to pay ₹5,000/- towards compensation. 9. Aggrieved by the said order, on an Appeal preferred by the Seeds Company the State Commission modified the order to the extent indicated above. 10. Learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petition vehemently argued that the Complaint is bad for non-joinder of parties as it was stated in the Written Version itself that the seeds were manufactured by Kaveri Seed Company Limited and marketed by the Revision Petitioner herein and that Kaveri Seed Company Limited was not made a party and the Complaint ought to be dismissed on that very issue. He further argued that the entire canvasing of the seeds was done by the Dealer and not by the Petitioner herein and therefore no deficiency of service can be attributed to them. He drew our attention to the first paragraph of the Inspection Report wherein it is stated that on 22.10.2012 the communication with respect to inspection was given to the Dealer and not to the Revision Petitioner herein or Kaveri Seed Company Limited and therefore the inspection was done in the absence of the Revision Petitioner herein and should not be given any credence. 11. The contention of the learned Counsel that Kaveri Seed Company Limited was not made a party and therefore the Complaint was to be dismissed on this ground is untenable in the light of the fact that no such averment was made either in the Written Version or in the Affidavit filed before the District Forum. It is in the Affidavit of Evidence that the Seeds Company had stated that there was a marketing Agreement entered into between Kaveri Seeds Company Limited and the Revision Petition herein on 28.03.2011. A perusal of the material on record does not establish that any Application was filed or any steps taken even by the Petitioner herein as to bring Kaveri Seed Company Limited on record to substantiate their case that the seeds were manufactured by Kaveri Seed Company Limited and hence the liability should be fastened on them. 12. The basic point that falls for consideration is whether the seeds sold by the Petitioner herein were defective and led to poor germination and loss of crop as alleged by the Complainants. At his juncture, for better understanding of the case the Inspection Report is reproduced as hereunder: “Inspection Report Today dated 22.10.2012 constituted team inspected the field of the complainant of cotton seed at village Guhan and in this context discussed with the farmers. All the farmers informed us that proprietor Sandeep Singh of Krishi Vikas Kendra Gohana convene a meeting of cotton producing farmers of the village and arranged the tea and snacks and give information pertaining to seed and along with informed the farmers that the seed shall be sent to the house of Jasmer Singh S/o Randhir Singh and farmers can purchase the seed for sowing. All the complainant farmers obtained the seed of cotton variety Ramaya BT-2 (KCH 707) from Jasmer Singh and at the time of receiving the seed from Krishi Vikas Kendra Gohana bill was not given to the farmers. The bill was given to the farmers when the crop was not as per the expectation of the farmers and due to this obtaining bills was delayed. The constituted team visited to the fields and found that the germination of the seed in the field was 30 to 50% less and growth of the plants was very less and in addition to this boll (tinde) were delayed.
Sd/- sd/- sd/- SMS (Agro) Sonipat Block Agriculture Agriculture Development Officer Sonipat Officer, Gohana” (Emphasis supplied) 13. It is seen from the Inspection Report that the germination of the seeds in the field was 30 to 50 % less and the growth of the plants was also not up to the mark and this report was given by the specialist, Agronomy, the Block Development Officer as well as the Agriculture Development Officer, Gohana therefore the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner that both the fora below have given undue credence to this Report is unsustainable as it can be seen that the inspection was done by the team of experts of the Agriculture Department and moreover the material on record does not evidence that any rebuttal to the same was filed by the Petitioner herein. With respect to submission of the learned Counsel that the germination would take 10 days’ time and therefore it has to be construed that the seeds were not sown in the right season of May/ June but instead were sown in October is not substantiated by any evidence and moreover the experts in their Inspection Report did not give any such finding. I find it a fit case to place reliance on the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Seeds Cooperation Ltd. Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy, (2012) 2 SCC 506 and Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. Vs. Alavalapati Chandra Reddy, (1998) 6 SCC 730, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the principle that Inspection Report is a valid expert opinion which can be relied upon by the Consumer fora, while deciding the matters with respect to seed defect and deficiency as the farmers are not expected to retain a portion of the seeds to send them for testing and would have sown all the seeds which they had purchased. Moreover, in this case there is no Application filed by the Seed Company seeking testing of the seeds under Section 13 (1)(c) as the onus shifts on them to establish whether the seeds sold by them were of standard quality mandated under the Seeds Act, 1966. Hence, the contention of the learned Counsel that the inspection was done in their absence does not hold any water. 14. We find force in the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant that a Marketing Agreement was entered into between Kaveri Seed Company Limited and the Revision Petitioner herein according to which the Petitioner herein agreed to market all the product in their own brand and also the packaging of the brand names was in their own names. He drew our attention to the Marketing Agreement filed before us which evidences that the agreement was for a period of three years and the Petitioner herein has not only agreed to market the said products in their own brand name but the packaging was also done with their own brand and hence the contention that there is no deficiency of service on their behalf cannot be accepted. 15. Now the submission of the learned Counsel that there was no basis for the State Commission to have awarded ₹17,200/- per acre is untenable as the perusal of the impugned order shows that the State Commission has relied on the average price of Cotton in the year 2012 i.e. ₹4,308/- per quintal in Haryana, assessed the loss at 50% at average yield of eight quintals per acre, calculated ₹4,300/- for 4 quintals per acre and modified to ₹17,200/- per acre based on the marketwise daily report of 2012 and Haryana Seeds Corporation Limited and hence I am of the view that the State Commission has rightly assessed the loss and has only given a reasonable compensation and there is no illegality or infirmity in the concurrent finding of both the fora below that there was defect in the seeds which led to poor germination and crop loss. 16. For all the aforenoted reasons, these Revision Petitions are dismissed accordingly no order as to costs. Needless to add, if any amount is deposited before the fora below shall stand released to the Complainant with accrued interest if any. | 
