IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) The test undertaken in its own laboratory by the petitioner cannot, however, be considered acceptable as per section 13 (i) (c) of the Act. Section 2 (1) (c) of the Act mandates that an ‘appropriate laboratory’ is either a laboratory of the Central or State government or one certified by it.
(2) Own laboratory - The test is its own laboratory is not an acceptable test under section 13(1)(c) and 2(1)(a).
(3) Sample of Seed - In the absence of the sample of seeds being available or its test results being from an ‘appropriate laboratory’, an alternative method is the only option of testing the quality of seeds.

ORDER

Subhash Chandra—This revision petition filed under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails order dated 03.09.2010 of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh, Indore Circuit Bench (in short, ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 578 of 2009 arising from the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Nomar, Mandleshwar, Madhya Pradesh (in short, ‘District Forum’) in consumer complaint No. CC 77 of 2008 dated 07.03.2009.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent no.1 sowed cotton seeds on his agricultural fields in village Karouli, Tehsil Maheshwar in 2008. The seeds were procured from respondent no. 2, the authorized seller of cotton seeds manufactured by Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd, the petitioner. 6 packets of seeds of 450 gms each were purchased for planting in 5 acres of land. After 4 months of sowing, the crop was reported to be dry and had a poor yield of 2-4-6 betel nuts. On the basis of a complaint field, the crop was inspected by the Officers of the Agriculture Department, Maheshwar who advised that pesticide treatment be undertaken. According to the petitioner, the report of the Officers of the Agriculture Department, did not indicate that the seeds were of poor quality and there is no evidence produced that the pesticide treatment advised was undertaken. On 05.04.2008 and 02.05.2008 the petitioner tested the seeds in his laboratory and found the purity to be 99.9%. On 18.10.2008 respondent no. 1 preferred a complaint before the District Forum which came to be dismissed on 07.03.2009 on the ground that deficiency on part of the petitioner was not proved since there was no evidence produced to the effect that pesticides/micronutrients and chemicals had been sprayed as advised by the Officers of the Agriculture Department, and the test report produced by the petitioner had indicated that the seeds were 99.9% of good quality. Respondent no. 1 approached the State Commission in appeal no.578 of 2009 on 25.03.2009. This appeal was allowed on 03.09.2010 with directions to pay Rs 1,25,000/- at Rs 25,000/- per acre, Rs 7,450/- as cost of seeds and Rs 1,000/- as costs.

3. The petitioner is before us impugning this order on the grounds that the State Commission erred in putting the onus on the petitioner to get the seeds tested as also the burden of proof to prove that the seeds were not defective. The State Commission’s reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. Vs. Alavalapati Chandra Reddy (1998) NCJ (SC) 464 is assailed as erroneous since this judgment was applicable to a particular case where there was no finding by the Apex Court which declined to interfere under Article 136 and observed that this Commission should have given a reasoned order in view of the State Commission’s findings. It is also urged that the State Commission erred in not accepting the report of the Officers of the Agriculture Department,which had been accepted by the District Forum and that the petitioner could not have proved that the seeds were defective, since a negative cannot be proved in law. It is also argued that the State Commission erred in determining the loss without there being any basis for it on record. It is also argued that the impugned order overlooked the fact that the Officers of the Agriculture Department, had advised the respondent to undertake various chemical treatments and that the same had not been done. It is argued that the conclusions are based on surmises and an erroneous reading of the order in Alavalapati Chandra Reddy (supra). It is therefore prayed to set aside the impugned order of the State Commission with costs.

4. The State Commission’s order reads as below:

5. Learned counsel has brought to our notice the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd., vs Alavalapati Chandra Reddy, (1998) NCJ (SC) 464. In this case also the Agricultural Officer vi