JUDGMENT : Asper S.K. Kulshrestha , J. (President ): - Theabove appeals assail separate orders passed by the District Forum, Dhar . For convenience the facts have been taken from AppealNo. 1434/07 unless otherwise stated. 2.The appellant has filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986complaining that the seed prepared by respondent No. 1 and sold by respondentNo. 2 did not grow as seed was of very inferior quality and the entire crop ofcotton was destroyed. The amount of Rs . 80,000/- wasclaimed as compensation. 3.The opposite parties traversed the allegations contained in the complaint anddenied the same. It was stated that the seed which was purchased by thecomplainant was not of lot No. December 03-12-G-16. The complainant did not have the necessary skill and that apart, no responsibleofficer was taken to the field for preparing his report in order to prove thatthe crop was affected on account of inferior seeds and, therefore, there was noyield. 4.First and foremost requirement is to prove that the seed was inferior, thecomplainant ought to have placed sufficient material in this behalf. The certificate ( Exh . P-2) hasbeen issued by the Patwari of Halka No. 35. The complainant has also filed photograph ( Exh . P-3) to show the state of affairs. However, apart fromthe certificate of Patwari , from none of thedocuments it can be elicited that there was failure of the crop much less onaccount of inferior seeds. It is therefore, amply clear that the complainant ineach case has failed to prove that the seeds was of inferior quality. Wetherefore, find no substance in these appeals. Accordingly, all these appealsare dismissed, but with no order as to costs.