ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. Petitioner was the Opposite Party before the District Forum where the
Respondent/Complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency on the part of the
Petitioner.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the Complainant had purchased carrot
seed for producing red carrots in his field but germination in the field showed 90% of
black carrot and 10% of red carrot. Thus, alleging deficiency on the part of the
Petitioner, Shyam Beej Bhandar, a complaint was filed before the District Forum who
after hearing the parties and on the report of local Commissioner held he Petitioner
deficient and awarded compensation of Rs. 40,000/- as damages for loss and crop and
Rs. 500/- as compensation. On an appeal filed by the Petitioner, State Commission
after hearing the parties modified the order of District Forum and reduced the
compensation to Rs. 20,000/- and waived of the compensation of Rs. 5000/- granted for
mental agony. It is against this order that Petition has been field by the Petitioner.
3. The only point agitated by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that it is the
failure of the District Forum to follow procedure as laid down in Section 13 of the Act
which has led to wrong conclusion. Had the seed been got tested as per provisions
of law, result could have been different. Not following the laid down procedure is a
serious lapse.
4. We have heard the Counsel and perused the material on record. In similar
situations we have held that when there is no residual seed with the cultivator, the
requirement of Section 13 relating to obtaining a test report from a notified Analysis
Laboratory cannot be fulfilled. Firstly, there is no requirement of sale by the
Petitioner in this case that certain percentage of seed sold should be retained to meet
such a contingency. Seed as a high value item and farmer should not be expected to
retain any part. He sows to the last grain. Secondly, we fail to appreciate as to what
prevented the petitioner from getting the stock of the same batch getting tested from a
notified laboratory. Since the requirement is unimplematable it cannot be enforced
and in such circumstances cannot be held against the Complainant. We see no merit
in this contention. There being no other point of law raised by the Petitioner, we find
the petition devoid of any merit, hence, dismissed. No order as to costs.