Complainant  Lakhwinder Singh has filed the present complaint against the opposite party U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite party to make payment of Rs.44,250/- in his favour alongwith interest regarding payment of Sugarcane crop weighing 150 Quintals @ Rs.295/- per Quintal. Opposite parties be also directed to pay compensation and litigation expenses amounting to Rs.40,000/- on account of mental and physical harassment suffered by him, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he has sown sugarcane crop in his agricultural land as per the instructions of the opposite party for the session 2014-15 and employees of the opposite party has filled his bond after visiting the spot. The opposite party issued receipt No.3243106, P.No.10736, PR. SQ 34>15>64 Dharah: 140 dated 14 February 2015 to him at the account No.073834001001587. He has made shelling of the Sugarcane crop and after shelling got it loaded in the Trolley and then the employees of the opposite party have given him receipt. The loaded charges of sugarcane was Rs.150/- quintals and its rate is @ Rs.295/- per quintal total comes to Rs.44,250/-. Thereafter his Tractor Trolley was entered into the premises of the Sugar Mill vide Entry dated 17.2.2015 at about 9.23 P.M. and they have given Token number to him bearing No.010359 and also checked the quality of sugar cane crop and its weight was found 150 quintals but the concerned clerk did not write the weight on the said receipt due to malafide intention.  After weighing of the sugarcane crop, the sugarcane crop was got unloaded from the Trolley and then he left the Mill premises and went back to his home. He has further pleaded that after few days, he was surprised when he saw the said receipt and found that the opposite party have not written the weight of the sugar cane crop over the receipt. Thereafter he went to the opposite party and they have assured that due to rush of work, the weight of the sugarcane crop was not got recorded and as and when the Mill became closed and then after they have made calculations and they will release the amount of the Sugarcane crop in his favour, but a week back, when he again visited the office of the opposite party and requested them to make the payment of sugarcane crop, but they refused to do so. Rather they have got cancelled the receipt and refused to make payment of the sugarcane crop to him. Hence this complaint.

3.          Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party who appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable and complainant is not entitled for any relief as his Parchi cum Receipt No.3243106 was cancelled and Sugar Cane was not unloaded in the mills by his Tractor Driver and the cane trolley was taken back by Driver, without entering into the mills premises. On merits, it was submitted that Parchi No.10736 was issued to the complainant and his Driver with Tractor Trolley loaded with sugarcane which was given token number by the lineman of the mills and the trolley was entered in the cane yard queue Cane Yard Supervisor verified the variety of the sugarcane and signed the Parchi. The trolley was not weighed at the Kanda as it was never entered in the gate of the mills and the Parchi was cancelled as the Driver of the Tractor Trolley taken back the sugar cane. Therefore neither it is weighed nor was its price calculated. It was further submitted that Sugar Cane Tractor Trolley was Parchi has to pass through Eight Processes. However the said Parchi No.10736 completed only two process and thereafter the Driver of the Tractor Trolley taken back the trolley for the reason best known to him. It was neither weighed nor passed through after five processes. Since the trolley with sugarcane not weighed therefore how can the Clerk write weight on the Parchi. Since the tractor trolley with loaded sugarcane not passed through other five processes therefore question of malafide intention does not arise.  It was further submitted that the complainant is old bond holder of the mills and his account is properly maintained for the year 2014-15. He supplied sugarcane to mills 56 times from 29.11.2014 to 16.4.2015 and there is no such complaint in the whole year. Since no cane supplied by the complainant to the mills against Parchi No.10736 therefore it bears no entry in the account of the complainant. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.   

4.      Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copy of parchi Ex.C2 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Sh.Pavitar Singh, ACDO of opposite party tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP1/1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP-1/2 to Ex.OP-1/5 and closed the evidence.

6.     We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also duly considered and perused the arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for the present litigants while adjudicating the present complaint. We find that the very pleadings as made out in the present complaint (& affidavit Ex.C1) read with the written statement (& affidavit Ex.OP1/1) along with the usual examination of the evidentiary documents reveal that the complainant being a sugar-cane farmer has been supplying/ selling his farm-produce to the titled OP sugar Mills as its raw material (sugar-cane harvest) for sugar manufacturing etc and as such the complainant here has been a ‘supplier’ of goods instead of being  the consumer of the opposite party. However, since the OP sugar mills have throughout the proceedings have acquiesced with the above ‘reversal’ of roles we move ahead with the routine furtherance of the present adjudication.     

7.       We find that the OP sugar mills has righteously deposed (Ex.OP1/1) having not in receipt of the ‘sugar-cane’ dispatch/ delivery vide the Parchi # 10736 as the Parchi cum Receipt # 3243106 stood cancelled since the sugarcane trolley-load was not unloaded there on 14.02.2015 as is evident from the copy of the same i.e., Ex.C2/ Ex.OP1/4. Moreover, the complainant has also failed to produce any cogent evidence to corroborate his accusing depositions (Ex.C1) of having un-loaded the sugar-cane trolley at the Mills (& others etc) and in its very absence these all amount to nothing more than simple bald statements/allegations. However, we find that the OP sugar mills have successfully produced reliable evidence by way of Ex.OP1/2 (8-Step systematic procedural print out) to show the lapse-marks, Ex.OP1/3 (sample Parchi cum Receipt) to highlight the difference-marks & finally Ex.OP1/5 (complainant’s account statement) to prove the complainant’s relation/ continuing patronage etc. And, that sufficiently exposes the contents of the present complaint to concocted redundancy.  

8.       In the light of the all above, we find the present complaint to be devoid of all actionable merit as statutorily envisaged under the CP Act and thus ORDER the dismissal of the same with however no orders as to its costs.

9.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.

                                                              (Naveen Puri)

                                                                        President

ANNOUNCED:                                       (Jagdeep Kaur)

February, 03 2016.                                           Member.

*MK*