STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ODISHA,CUTTACK
REVISION PETITION NO 105 OF 2015
(From an order dated 15.7.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rayagada in C.C. no. 439 of 2014)
Senior General Manager,
Manufacturing (Ferro Alloys),
Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Limited,
At/Po – Therubali, Dist – Rayagada,
Pin – 765 018, Odisha
… Petitioner
Vrs.
- Bamana Huika,
S/o Hari Huika,
At – Relipadar, Po – Therubali,
Dist – Rayagada, Odisha, Pin – 765 018
2. The Regional Officer,
State Pollution Control Board,
Regional Office, At/Po/Dist – Rayagada,
Odisha, Pin – 765 018
3. The Deputy Director of Agriculture,
At/Po/Dist – Rayagada,
Odisha, Pin – 765 018
4. The Collector & District Magistrate,
At/Po/Dist – Rayagada,
Odisha, Pin – 765 018
… Opposite parties
______________
For the petitioner : Mrs S.Modi, Advocate
For opp.party no.1 : None
For opp.party no.2 : M/s S.P.Mohanty & Associates
For opposie prty nos. 3 & 4 : Mr Y.M.S.Rao, A.G.P.
_______________
P R E S E N T:
THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.N.BISWAL, PRESIDENT,
SHRI G.P.SAHOO, MEMBER
AND
SMT.SMARITA MOHANTY, MEMBER
DATED THE 31st OCTOBER, 2016
O R D E R
JUSTICE R.N.BISWAL, PRESIDENT
This revision is preferred against the order dated 15.7.2015 passed by the District Forum, Rayagada in C.C.no. 439 of 2014 holding that the Consumer Complaint is maintainable and directing the petitioner and opposite party nos. 2 to 4 in the present revision to file written version within 10 days and prepare for hearing and finalization of the case.
Petitioner was opposite party no. 1, opposite party no.1 was complainant and opposite party nos. 2 to 4 were also opposite party nos. 2 to 4 respectively in the aforesaid Consumer Complaint pending before the District Forum.
The case of the complainant, stated in brief is that he is a farmer and maintains his livelihood on cultivation. With a view to get more income, he cultivated cotton, a cash crop on his land situated in Anuguda Mouza, Therubali R.I.Circle under Kolonara Tahasil in the district of Rayagada. But due to emission of smoke from the Electric Open Arc furnaces and Chrome dust from the Molasses Briquetting Plant of opposite party no. 1 - factory, the cotton crops were severely affected, resulting huge crop loss and damage, health hazards, environmental pollution including pollution of water flowing in the Satnallha which affects animals, birds and natural habitats. So, complainant filed the aforesaid case with prayer to pay compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards financial loss due to crop damage, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and health hazards and Rs.12,000/- towards cost of litigation.
On being noticed, opposite party no. 1 filed a petition before the District Forum to hear on the maintainability of the Consumer Complaint as preliminary issue on the ground that complainant is not a ‘consumer’ and prayed to dismiss the Consumer Complaint.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and relying on the decision in the case of Secretary, Tirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society vrs. M.Lalitha and others reported in (2004) 1 Page 305, the District Forum held that the complainant is a ‘consumer’ and accordingly, passed the impugned order.
Being aggrieved with the said order, opposite party no. 1 has preferred the present appeal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that opposite party no. 1 neither purchased any goods nor availed any service from the petitioner on consideration. So, the complainant would not come under the scope and ambit of ‘consumer’ as defined U/s 2(1) (d) of the C.P.Act. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the revision petition, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the Consumer Complaint.
Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 also advanced the same argument as advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears on behalf of opposite party no.1 so also opposite party nos. 3 and 4 on call.
At this stage, it is apposite to quote Section 2(1)(d) of C.P.Act, which reads as follows:-
“(d) “Consumer” means any person who –
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose.”
Admittedly, in the case at hand, opposite party no. 1 has not availed any service nor purchased any goods from the petitioner for any consideration, as such, he cannot be a ‘consumer’ under them. Only because the Consumer Protection Act is a social benefit oriented Act, it cannot be said that anybody who files a case before the District Forum, State Commission or National Commission as the case may be he can be a ‘consumer’. The decision, Secretary, Tirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society (Supra) relying upon which the District Forum held that opposite party no. 1 is a consumer is not applicable to the present case. There is magnificent error of law and gross procedural illegality in the impugned order as such, it deserves to be set aside.
Accordingly, the revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Consequentially, Consumer Complaint no. 439 of 2014 stands dismissed.
………………………. …………….. …………………………
(Smarita Mohanty) (G.P.Sahoo) (Justice R.N.Biswal)
Member Member President
