The court upheld the decision of the State Commission based on the concurrent findings of facts and the provisions of Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

ORDER :

1. Heard.

2. Respondent/Complainant herein, filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tumkur (for short, ‘District Forum’) on the ground that he has purchased certain bags of Papaya seeds from Petitioner No. 2/opposite party No. 2 and the seeds were manufactured by Petitioner No. 1/opposite party No. 1. The said seeds were not germinated within the specified time and as such respondent/complainant suffered loss and claimed damages in the form of compensation amounting to Rs. 4,90,000 with interest.

3. Both the petitioners did not appear before the District Forum, in spite of service. Accordingly, they were proceeded ex-parte.

4. Thereafter, District Forum vide order dated 10.6.2010, allowed the complaint of the respondent in part and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) as compensation along with cost of Rs. 1,000.

5. Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, both petitioners filed appeal before the State Commission. Along with it, an application seeking condonation of delay of 114 days was also filed.

6. The State Commission vide its impugned order dated 10.11.2011 dismissed the application for condonation of delay being devoid of merits and also dismissed the appeal on merits.

7. Hence, this revision petition.

8. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that respondent did not produce any expert evidence before the District Forum. Moreover, the seeds were not sown in the field but in the poly bags in open sun light. Hence, respondent itself was negligent.

9. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned Counsel for the respondent that petitioners were proceeded ex parte before the District Forum. The respondent has fully proved his claim before the District Forum. Further, before the State Commission there was delay of 114 days in filing the appeal. So, there is no infirmity or ambiguity in the order passed by the State Commission.

10. The State Commission in its order has observed:

“8. It is the case of the complainant that he being lured away with the advertisement and publicity issued by the OP, purchased several packets of Papaya seeds from the OP for a total cost of Rs. 12,600. He has sown the Papaya seeds in two acres of his land and carried out all the agricultural operation as contemplated and as per the instructions of OP. He did provide the water and the manure. Unfortunately the said seeds did not germinate. Thereby he suffered total loss. He made request to OP to visit his field and notice the existing situation. Though one of the field officers of the OP i.e., Venugopal visited the field, noticed that the seeds are not germinated, thereafter also there was no response from the OP. Then complainant caused the legal notice, again the OP kept quiet. Thus, he felt both deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

9. The evidence of the complainant which finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents appears to be natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quality. Though OPs were duly served with the notices, remained absent without any sufficient reasons or cause. The absence of the OPs does not appear to be bona fide and reasonable. When there is a basic proof that the seeds sold by the OPs did not germinate, there is no need to get any other expert evidence. The contention of the complainant that one of the field Officers of the OP i.e. Venugoal visited the land and observed non-germination of the seeds remained unchallenged. OP neither put their defence nor examined their field officer to substantiate their defence if any.

10. Though OP is aware of the filing of the said complaint failed to appear. It is contended by the OPs that they came to know of the order only when they received the notice in execution case No. 34/2010 that is why there is a delay in filing the appeal. We do not accept the said ex