JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal by M/s Mukesh Beez Bhandar' against the grant of Rs. 20,000/- compensation and refund of Rs. 330/- as price of the seed. 2. It is said that the complainant Shri Paramjeet Singh purchased 20 kg sealed and packed seeds of paddy from the shop of the \appellant. The appellant gave guarantee. The complainant sown it but since the seeds were not good, it gave very low yield which caused a loss of Rs. 40,000/- to the complainant. The complainant made several complaints but the appellant did not hear. Hence, a complaint was filed in the Forum. 3. The appellant put the plea that he had never sold any paddy seed to the complainant nor he gave any guarantee He sells only seeds of vegetables in small packets and gives pakki raseeds to the purchasers. He never sales any seed without any receipt. The complainant is a resident of district Pilibheet and the firm of the appellant is situated in Sitar Gunj, District Udham Singh Nagar. There is no question of purchase of any seed from the shop of the appellant. 4. After the hearing the parties, the learned Forum allowed a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 330/- as price of the seed and Rs. 5001- as cost of litigation. Against this order, appeal has been filed. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. The case of the appellant is of total denial and once it is proved that the complainant had purchased seed from this shop, then there is no plea that the seeds sold by the appellant was of good quality or the yield produced by the complainant was sufficient and the complainant is not entitled to compensation. 6. To deny the case, it was alleged by the appellant that the complainant is a resident of Pilibheet; his shop is in Udham Singh Nagar. A judicial notice of the fact can be taken that Pilibheet and Udham Singh Nagar are adjoining districts. Sitar Gunj is a good market and the argument of the complainant was that the respondents of his locality make every marketing from Sitar Gunj. Nothing is said by the appellant that the complaint has got any enmity with him that he has got any motive to lodge a false claim against him. The complainant is an agriculturist. Sitar Gunj is a good market and the argument of the complainant was that the respondents of his locality make every marketing from Sitar Gunj. Nothing is said by the appellant that the complaint has got any enmity with him that he has got any motive to lodge a false claim against him. The complainant is an agriculturist. He must be doing his agriculture from long before. There is no case that earlier he had implicated. The complainant or any other person also falsely. All of a sudden, there is no reason for the complainant to have gone to the Forum and to file a false case. The 'plea appears to have been taken merely because the complainant did not take a receipt from the appellant. In ordinary course of business, more than 80% do not take receipts and for this reason alone, the case of the complainant cannot be disbelieved. The appellant alleged that he is a seed seller but he sales seeds of vegetables only. He did not produce his registers; receipt books etc. to show that he has never sold paddy seeds. It is certainly the onus of the complainant to prove that he has purchased the seed from the appellant but it was also the onus the of the appellant to have proved that he does may sell the seeds of paddy. Admittedly he is a seed seller he has got a bhandar of seeds only. It is not said that he does any other business. Therefore, the ordinary presumption is that he may be selling seeds of all type. Therefore, the onus was on the appellant that he never sold the paddy seeds Affidavit of witness has been filed by the complainant to prove his case on facts. There is a definite finding of the learned Forum that the complainant has purchased the seeds from the shop of the appellant. 7. The next argument of the learned counsel for the appellant was that his seeds have not been sent for proper analysis and for that purpose he referred the ruling reported in 1999 (2) CPR 274, M/s Cosmo Plantgene Ltd. V/s Asha Ram Sharma in which it has been held that growing of crop depends up on many facts like soil, climate, agronomic practices for which the seeds should have been sent for proper analysis. Again to revert to the same argument that these pleas are not open for the appellant because his case is of the denial that he has never sold the seeds to the complainant. His case was never that although he has sold the seeds, it were of good quality and the soil, climate etc. itself was bad. This ruling will not apply even otherwise there is nothing on record to show that the climate, soil, agronomic practices were not being followed. 8. Seeds have already been sown in the fields. The complainant could not have been suspicious that he should preserve some seeds for being sent for proper analysis because it may be not of good quality. Once the seeds have been sown and no sample being preserved, there was no question of sending it to the analyst for analysis. So is the position of the ruling reported in 2001 (3) CPR 262. Aziz V/s Egale Seeds Development Corporation. 9. On the basis of these rulings, it was also argued that petition shall 'not lie. Definitely, the complainant is a consumer. He has purchased seeds from the appellant. The seeds were not of desired quality. It did not grow properly. Therefore, definitely, there is deficiency in service. When the relationship of consumer and deficiency in service have been established, a complaint shall lie under the Consumer Protection Act. The provisions of Consumer Protection Act are supplemental to other proceedings. The rights of the complainant under the Seeds Act are only in addition to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and if the complainant has envoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum, it cannot be said that no relief can be granted to him under the provisions of the Act. Secondly also, we have gone through the provisions of the Seeds Act. These provisions are for seed inspectors etc. and there is provision for penalty under Section •19 of the Act for fine etc. There is no provision for compensation to the consumer under the provisions of the Seed Act. While the claim of the complainant is to be compensated for the loss caused to him. ORDER 10. There is no force in this appeal. The appeal is to be dismissed. The appeal is hereby dismissed however, cost of the appeal shall be easy.