ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member)
1. In this revision filed by opposite party No. 2, challenge is to the order dated 27.7.2004 of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore dismissing appeal against the order dated 28.2.2002 of a District Forum. The District Forum had directed the petitioner and respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 1 to jointly and severally pay amount of Rs. 58,740 with interest @ 12% p.a., Rs. 1,000 towards mental agony and cost, to respondent No. 1/complainant.
2. Respondent No. 1, an agriculturist had purchased 5 bags of 2 kgs. each of sunflower seed under receipt No. 1495 on 22.8.1997 from respondent No. 2, dealer of the petitioner, manufacturer. At the time of purchase of seed, respondent No. 1 was assured by respondent No. 2 that the minimum yield of sunflower per bag of 2 kgs. would be 15 bags of 50 kgs. each. Though respondent No. 1 sowed 5 bags of seed in his land but the crop did not come up as promised by respondent No. 2. It busted at the ground level and did not come up in height. Respondent No. 1 alleging the seeds being defective filed complaint seeking compensation which was contested by the petitioner as also respondent No. 2. On contest the complaint was allowed by the District Forum in the manner noticed above and appeal filed against District Forum’s order by the petitioner was dismissed by the State Commission.
3. Submission advanced by Mr. Gireesh Kumar for petitioner is two fold : (i) In order to prove that the seed supplied was defective the respondent No. 1 did not send the sample thereof to the laboratory for testing and (ii) seed was not sown by respondent N0. 1 as per instructions of the petitioner. We were taken through the statements of respondent No. 1, Manik, Jagadish Gauda and Imtiaz Ahmad (copies at pages 31 to 45). Manik was examined as a witness by respondent No. 1 Jagadish Gauda was examined as witness by the petitioner while Imtiaz Ahmad by respondent No. 2. Submission at (i) above was also canvassed on behalf of the petitioner before the District Forum but was repelled relying on the decision in N.S.C. Ltd. v. Guruswamy and Anr. I (2002) CPJ 13 (NC). Testimony of respondent No. 1 would show that whatever seed was purchased from respondent No. 2 was sown by him in the land. Thus, there was no occasion for respondent No. 1 to have sent the sample of seed for testing to the laboratory. It is in the deposition of Jagadish Gauda that after testing the seed the petitioner packed and sent it to the market. However, the testing report of the disputed seed has not been filed. Since petitioner company is engaged in business of sunflower seed on large scale, it must be having the seed of the lot which was sold to respondent No. 1. In order to prove that the seed sold to respondent No. 1 was not sub-standard/defective, the petitioner could have sent the sample for testing to the laboratory which it failed to do. Thus, no adverse inference can be drawn against respondent No. 1 on ground of his having not sent the sample of seed for testing to a laboratory.
4. Coming to second limb of contention referred to above, it was pointed out by Mr. Gireesh Kumar that as per instructions 2 kgs. of seed was to be sowed in one acre but respondent No. 1 sowed 1 kg. seed per acre. In his cross-examination, Jagdish Gauda deposed that he did not know that as per instruction of respondent No. 2, dealer the respondent No. 1 had sowed 10 kgs. of seeds in 10 acres. It is further in his cross-examination that outside the bag it was not printed that the instructions were kept inside the bag. On M.O.-I the instructions for sowing the seed for one acre was not mentioned. On the face of this evidence, it cannot be said that respondent No. 1 did not follow the alleged instructions in the matter of sowing seed. Both the Fora below have found the petitioner deficient in service for having supplied defective seed to respondent No. 1. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by Fora below warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
5. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed with Rs. 5,000 as costs to respondent No. 1.