Burden of proof regarding seed quality lies with the respondent, who must provide evidence against claims of defects.

1. This revision petition filed under S.21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act , 1986 (in short, the 'Act') assails the order of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (in short, 'State Commission') in First Appeal No. 288 of 2015, dated 9.12.2015 arising out of order dated 20.11.2014 in complaint No. 415 of 2013 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sonepat (in short, 'District Forum').

2. The brief facts of the case as stated by the petitioner are that he is an agriculturist owning land in Ram Nagar village, Tehsil Ganaur, District Sonepat. He had bought 3 kg okra (bhindi) seeds at the rate of Rs.1,200 per kg vide bill no 230 dated 22.5.2013 from respondent No. 1. The seeds were sown as per instructions and supervision directed by the respondent No. 1 after preparing the fields as per good agricultural practice. However, the crop of the okra planted was yellowish in colour and completely useless for sale in the market. On approaching the respondent No. 1 the petitioner was informed that he was only the retailer of the seeds which were manufactured by respondent No. 2, M/s Prerna Okra Hybrid Seeds. The petitioner approached the District Horticulture Officer, Sonepat who after inspecting the okra crop opined that the okra was unfit for human consumption. The petitioner then approached the respondents seeking compensation of Rs.1,28,600 for the loss incurred on account of the defective seeds supplied, comprising cost of Rs.3,600 for the seeds, expenses of Rs.25,000 in cultivation and Rs.1,00,000 for the loss in earnings from sale. Rs.25,000 was also claimed for harassment. As there was no response, a legal notice was served on 5.9.2013 which also did not elicit any response. He then filed consumer complaint No. 415 of 2013. The complaint was allowed by the District Forum which awarded Rs.35,000 as lumpsum compensation to be paid by respondent No. 2.

3. Respondent No. 2 filed First Appeal No. 288 of 2015 against this order before the State Commission which allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum. This order is impugned before this Commission on the grounds that the State Commission failed to appreciate that the bill / invoice was proof of purchase of the seeds that were planted and erroneously took the view that quality of seeds alone could not be the cause of the failure of the crop as there were several other factors involved in agriculture. It is averred that the State Commission failed to appreciate the report of the District Horticulture Office, Sonepat which reported the okra to be yellowish on account of defective seeds. This report did not mention that the crop had not been tended to properly as claimed by the respondent. It also failed to appreciate that only the okra crop was defective out of the multiple varieties of seeds sown by the petitioner. It is also averred that the respondents could have had the seeds tested which they did not choose to do. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. M. Madhusudan Reddy & Another, 2012 (I) CPJ 1 (SC) : 2012 (II) SLT 51 : 2012 (2) SCC 506, wherein it was held that the report of the local Commissioner / Agriculture Officer should be considered in such cases and that it was the respondent / manufacturer's obligation to have the seeds tested in such cases. It is prayed that the order of the State Commission be set aside and that of the District Forum be affirmed.

4. The impugned order of the State Commission held as under:
"6. According to the appellants, it is a matter of common knowledge as well