IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 13th day of October, 2021
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 164/2020 (filed on 16/10/2020)
Petitioner : Devasia Jospeh @ Sunny,
Kalayathinal
(Kochupurackal) Home
Melampara Kara,
Thalappalam Village,
Plassanal P.O. – 686 579
(Adv. Justin Joseph)
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1) George Kurian,
Pottamkulam,
President,
Karshaka Open Market
(KTM/TC/492/14)
Kalaketty P.O.
Kanjirappally – 686 508.
Kottayam.
2) Kurian George Kuruvinakunnel,
Secretary,
Karshaka Open Market
(KTM/TC/492/14)
Kalaketty P.O.
Kanjirappally – 686 508.
Kottayam.
O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
The complainant is a farmer who depends on his agriculture for his livelihood. The opposite parties are the President and Secretary of the Farmers Open Market, Kalaketti. The opposite parties had made the complainant believe that the objective of the society itself is to buy the agricultural produce from the farmers directly and sell to others. The complainant is not a member of the society but has been selling the produce to the society. The opposite party society never pays for the products at the time of purchase. The market is open on every Tuesdays. The complainant used to sell the vegetables, banana etc. in this market to the opposite parties and though they had paid some amount, the opposite parties owe Rs. 65,588/- to the complainant as per the ledger book of the opposite parties.
Even after repeated demands, the opposite parties did not care to pay the amount to the complainant. So the complainant sent a legal notice on 12.03.20 which was received by the opposite parties but no reply was sent. The opposite parties has misused the money due to the complainant and hence the complaint is filed for getting the amount of Rs. 65,588/- from the opposite parties along with the interest and compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the deficiency of service from the part of the opposite parties.
Though the opposite parties received the notice from this Commission, they did not appear before this Commission and were set exparte.
The complainant adduced evidence through chief affidavit and Exhibit A1 to A4 .
The complainant was heard in detail also.
On perusal of the above facts and evidence we frame the following issues:
- Whether the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parities?
- Whether the complainant has succeeded in establishing the deficiency in service of the opposite parties?
For answering the above points, both points are considered together.
The complainant has been selling the agricultural produces which were cultivated by him to the opposite parties. From this pleading itself the complainant has lost the locus standi to file a consumer complaint. As per S.7 of the Consumer Protection Act,
- (7) “Consumer means any person who-
- 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 service 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 service 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 service for any commercial purpose”.
Here the complainant has not paid any consideration to the opposite parties but received consideration from them. He is not a consumer and has not paid any amount to the opposite parties. No document has been produced before us to establish himself a consumer.
The complainant has filed IA189/21, an amendment petition to amend the
complaint to the effect that a portion also to be added as the complainant and the
opposite parties had entered into a service contract in which the opposite parties
had agreed to act as an intermediary for the sale of the products of the complainant. But no such service contract is produced. Moreover, No amendment application can be allowed in the later stage after the trial of the case unless the amendment warrants such a situation that the complainant can produce any piece of evidence only in a situation which was not in his control. Here no such situation is established.
So in the absence of cogent evidence the complainant has disproved himself as a consumer. Hence the complainant being not a consumer of the opposite parties, the complaint is not maintainable and hence dismissed. The complainant is at liberty to initiate litigation before any appropriate forum for redressing his grievance.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 13th day of October, 2021.
Smt. Bindhu R, Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 -Copy of ledger book dtd.13-08-2020 to 19-08-2020 issued by opposite
Party
A2 – Copy of lawyers notice dtd.12-03-20
A3 – Postal receipt
A3 – Postal acknowledgement card
By Order
Senior Superintendent
