Mr. Justice Y.B. Suryavanshi, President— This common order will govern all the aforesaid four Appeals as they involve identical points of law and similar facts, and the Appellants are the same. The appellants are aggrieved against the orders awarding varying amount of compensations to the four Complainants/- Respondents on the ground, that the Soyabean Seeds, Variety, J.S 7546-ADAR, purchased by them on different dates were of sub-standard quality, and therefore, the seeds did not sprout, and they suffered losses. The details of awards follow later.

2.(a) The undisputed facts at this stage are, and which are also otherwise found proved are, that M.P. Rajya Beej Evam Farm Vikas Nigam (Appellant), for short, called, Nigam is a Corporation created under M.P. Act No. 18 of 1980. The Preamble and Scheme of Sections indicate, that Act was “passed to establish a Corporation for the execution of projects with a view to developing production of Quality Seeds, and for setting up developing and running agricultural farms to provide for better and larger agricultural production and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto” Sections 8, 11, 25, 31, 40 and 41 indicate that it is a State Undertaking.

2. (b) It is not dispute that the Soyabean Seeds supplied to the Complainants were purchased by Nigam from Central State Farm Corporation of India, Beharaich Centre in U.P. There is ample evidence to show that the Seeds so supplied to the complainants were in bags containing 40 Kg. each in sealed condition. Besides they carried tags displaying that bags were packed under the supervision of U.P. Rajya Beej Pramanikaran Sanstha, Lucknow, who had certified as to the Quality of the Seeds.

3. Undisputedly, the complainant/- Respondent Anand Pratap Singh (Appeal No. 10/- 91) had purchased 80 kg. for Rs. 660/- on 12.7.1990 for sowing it in his field, area two acres. The complainant/- Respondent Valmikisingh (Appeal No. 11/- 91) purchased one Quintal 60 kgs. for Rs. 1,320/- on 11.7.1990; the Complainant/- Respondent Arun Kumar Singh (Appeal No. 12 of 1991) had purchased 520 Kg. on 12.7.1990; whereas Chatrapati Singh (Respondent/- Complainant in Appeal No. 13 of 1991) purchased 4 Quintals 40 Kgs. on 10.7.1990 for Rs. 3,630/- . It is also not disputed that on Complaint’s Application by those complainants about sub-standard Quality of those seeds addressed to D.D. Agriculture, Rewa, the Nigam had returned to them, by cheques, the purchase prices.

4. In the above backdrop, the four complainants filed complaints alleging that inspite of proper sowing and other agricultural operations, the seeds did not sprout, and on basis of alleged loss of yield per hectare, they claimed compensations. The learned Forum held Nigam Liable for supplying sub-standard seeds, and after estimating loss of crop-yield per hectare, the Forum passed awards as follows:-

Claim Case Complainants Name & Damages claimed Compensation awarded

1. No. 26/90AppealNo. 10/91 Anand Pratap SinghRs. 4,740/- Rs. 12,000/-

2. C.No. 20/90AppealNo. 11/91 Valmiki SinghRs. 13,700/- Rs. 7,680/-

2. 2.C.No. 23/90AppealNo. 12/91 Arun Kumar SinghRs. 78,000/- Rs. 30,810/-

3. 3.C.No. 21/90AppealNo. 13/91 Chatrapati SinghRs. 31,590/- Rs. 7,740/-

Besides, they have all been awarded costs Rs. 200/- each.

5. The appellants version was that Nigam had purchased the seeds from Central State Farm Corporation of India, Behraich Centre U.P., which were in sealed bags of 40 Kg. each and bore tags certifying the Quality, after the checking done by U.P. Rajya Pramanikaran Sanstha under the supervision of Director C.S.F. Beharaich U.P. Thus, Nigam had sold the seeds after taking all reasonable care and precautions to satisfy about its Quality, and has not been negligent. While denying the failure of crops for want of knowledge, inter alia, it stated that the complainants should have shown how the seeds were defective; that on failure of the crops, the complainants should have diverted the cultivation to other c