The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the complainant, who must provide concrete evidence to support claims of defective goods under consumer law.

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order of dismissal of complaint, the original complainant had preferred this appeal against the impugned order and judgment dated 4th September 2017 of District Commission, Himmatnagar, in complaint No. 26/2017 and submitted that the District Commission failed to consider contents of complaint, Rejoinder affidavit and also failed to appreciate documents produced on record and thereby caused miscarriage of justice.

2. It is the case of complainant before District Forum that on 6.7.2016 he had purchased 40 Kg groundnuts seeds of the brand Gujarat - KAG (Produced and Manufactured by Karan Agri Genetics Pvt Ltd who is opponent no.2) at the price of Rs. 2,300 per bag of 20 Kg and paid Rs. 4,600 to opponent no.1. The complainant stated that the opponent no. 1 had given assurance about the quality of material but when he had sawn it in his field it did not gave desired result. The complainant stated that there was no proper yield and therefore complainant had asked the opponent no.1 to visit his farm. The complainant stated that the opponent visited his farm and after seeing poor yield, he asked the complainant to purchase another bag and to saw it again. The opponent no.1 did not care for the poor result of seeds. The complainant then came to know that the packing bag do not have sufficient information as to product, quality, year of manufacturing, price tag which are mandatory for the packaged goods. The complainant also informed this to the opponent no.1 but he remained silent and gave no reply. The complainant states that he could have earn better for his livelihood from the use of the seeds but because of sub-standard material, he could not earn anything but had to suffer loss and therefore he had left with no option but to file complaint in which he had described how he suffered loss and prayed for total compensation of Rs. 55,800.

3. When the complaint was filed before District Commission and notice was served upon the opponent, they appeared before District Commission through advocate and filed reply contending therein that complaint of the complainant is false, baseless, misconceived and therefore, unsustainable in law. It was also contended that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction since it was not a Consumer Dispute. It is further submitted that because Complaint under the Consumer Act, to be adjudicated through summary trial whereas to ascertain quality of material and the loss actually sustained by the complainant, detail evidence would be required. It is further contended that complaint is time barred. It is also further contended that to prove defective goods there must be a report from competent authority as to "defect in goods for which an expert opinion would be necessary either from the laboratory or from other experts. Thus, complainant has to prove his case through adducing adequate evidence. It is also contended that there are many reasons which may affect the yield of crop. According to the opponent no.1, the product was tested by competent authority and they have certified quality of product and therefore it cannot be taken lightly that product was substandard. It was also contended therein that if complainant is alleging quality of material then he should get it tested through appropriate laboratory for which provisions have been made in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On merits it was contended that the complainant has not followed the procedure for sending the materials to the laboratory and therefore, in absence of any evidence to establish defective goods, the complaint is required to be dismissed.
The opponent no.2 contended that the goods which stated to have been supplied were tested and the lot number mentioned