Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/40/2016

The General Manager - Complainant(s)

Versus

K.Devendran - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.S.Saravanan

06 Dec 2021

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 BEFORE   Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE. R. SUBBIAH                   ::     PRESIDENT                       

                  Tmt.Dr.S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                            ::      MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 40/2016

  (Against the order in C.C. No.29/2011 on the file of the D.C.D.R.C., Perambalur)

                         DATED THE 06^th  DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

 

The General Manager,

Dhanalakshmi Sreinivasan Sugar (P) Ltd.,

Udimbiyam Post,

Veppanthattai Taluk,

Perambalur District.                                                       ..Appellant /Opposite party.

 

- Versus -

K. Devendran,

S/o. Mr. Kandhasamy,

Jamin Athur Village & Post,

Kunnam Taluk,

Perambalur District.                                                         ..Respondent /Complainant.

 

Counsel for Appellant /Opposite party                : M/s. Saravanan

Respondent /Complainant                                     : Served called absent

 

This appeal coming before us for final hearing today, on 23.11.2021 and on hearing the arguments of Appellant and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following order:-

ORDER

Tmt. Dr. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI:

            This appeal has been filed by the appellant / opposite party under section 15  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Perambalur.

1.         The factual background culminating  in to  appeal is as follows:-

The complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not performing agreed terms and for compensation of Rs.2,88,750/- for loss of crops.

2.         The complainant was owning agricultural lands in Jamin Athur Village and was cultivating sugarcane crops to an extent of 3 acres.  The complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite party who was a sugar production factory and as per the agreement, the sugarcane crops raised by the complainant would be utilized by the opposite party and at the appropriate time the opposite party would issue  cutting order to the complainant.  For the said purpose, loan was arranged through Indian Overseas Bank to meet out the expenses of the complainant.  The complainant spent large amount to raise the sugarcane crops and the crops attained the stage of maturity i.e. ready to cultivate.  The life of the sugarcane crops would diminish day by day if the cutting was not done at the appropriate time.  Thus, the complainant was expecting the cutting order from the opposite party from the month of December 2010.  The complainant approached the opposite party several times but the opposite party without any justifying reason failed to issue the cutting order in the complainant’s lands.  The age of the sugarcane is only 12 months and after the lapse of the said period the crops would become useless.  Thus, the complainant’s crops because futile causing huge monetary loss to the complainant.   Thus, it was alleged by the complainant that though the agreement was accepted by both parties, the opposite party failed to perform it’s part by failing to give cutting order in the appropriate time and thus committed deficiency in service.  The complainant arrived at the loss to the tune of Rs.2,88,750/- for the loss of sugarcane crops.  Hence, the complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and to direct them to pay a compensation of Rs.2,88,750/- to the complainant.

3.         The opposite party filed version stating that though there was an agreement between the complainant and the opposite party with regard to the cutting order all other allegations of the complainant was false.  The opposite party denied that they never arranged any loan facility for the complainant to raise crops in his fields.  It is submitted that the opposite party factory has got crushing capacity of 2500 metric tones.  The opposite party was receiving sugarcane for crushing not only from the ryotwari cultivators like complainant but also from many other cultivators from WILL area i.e. without any agreement for obtaining sugarcane for crushing and the season for crushing was from October of the calendar year to September of the next calendar year.  The opposite party submitted that on 18.01.2011, the sugarcane cutting contractor by name K. Ramalingam was sent to harvest sugarcane in the complainant’s field.  But for the reasons best known to the complainant the said contractor was not permitted to cut the crops and the complainant was demanding Rs,5,000/- extra and thus, the contractor could not cut the sugarcane crops.  The complainant failed to bear the cutting expenses which was earlier admitted by him.  Again on 13.06.2011, another cutting contractor by name M. Selvam with his team went to the complainant’s fields to harvest the crops and that time also, the complainant refused to bear any expenses for the cutting charges.  Thus, the complainant on two occasions prevented the men of the opposite party from cutting the crops.   The opposite party denies that there was any contractual obligation whatsoever between the complainant and there was no cause of action for the complainant to file the consumer complaint and sought for dismissal of the complaint.   

4.         The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4.  The opposite party filed proof affidavit and marked documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B4.

5.         The learned District Forum after perusing the pleadings and documents submitted by both parties allowed the complaint in part and directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,59,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards cost holding opposite party had committed deficiency in service.

Aggrieved against the same, the opposite party had preferred the present appeal.   

6.         The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service proved on the part of the opposite party in not issuing the cutting order at the appropriate time thus causing loss to the complainant?
2. If so, to what relief the complainant is entitled?

7.         Point Nos.1 & 2:-

Heard the Counsel for the appellant and the respondent failed to appear in spite of sufficient notice.    Written arguments filed on the side of the file of appellant.

The Counsel for the appellant submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable before the consumer Forum as the agreement alleged by complainant for cutting of sugarcane and supply of the same comes under commercial transactions.   Further, it was argued that the complainant had not specified any specific amount was promised by the opposite parties to be paid for the sugarcane crops and hence, the question of payment of consideration and availing of service does not arise. 

8.         On hearing the argument of appellant, we are unable to accept the contentions for the following reasons.   It is admitted by both the parties that it was agreed between them that the complainant will grow sugarcane crops in his field and the opposite party / appellant herein will issue cutting orders for the same and the crops would be utilised for extracting sugar by crushing  the crops in the opposite party’s factory.   Though it is contended by the complainant that there was an written agreement between the parties the same was not produced before the District Forum.   Therefore, the District Forum had no occasion to discuss about the presence of a written agreement or contract.  In such circumstances, the contentions by the appellant that the complaint was based on a written agreement and hence, the consumer forum has no jurisdiction to try the said complaint could not be accepted.   Further, the complainant is raising crops in his field in a small level and only to eak out his livelihood.  It is apparent that the complainant is not engaged in a huge commercial cultivation of crops.  In such circumstances, he comes under the exclusion clause as provided under the section 2 (1) (d) that “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self employment.  Thus, we are unable to accept the arguments by the appellant that the transaction comes under commercial purposes and hence, the complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Commission.

9.         Apart from the above submissions, the opposite party has admitted in the written version that on two occasions they had sent people to cut the sugarcane crops from the complainant’s field but the same could not be carried out as the complainant raised some dispute over the cutting charges.  It is thus evident that the complainant and the opposite parties had transactions as alleged by the complainant.  The statements by the opposite party that in spite of them coming forward to cut the crops the same was not allowed by the complainant was not proved by the opposite party by submitting any proof affidavit by the person who went to the complainant’s field.  Therefore, we are of the view that the opposite party failed to prove that they had sent persons to cut the crops at the appropriate time in view of the agreed terms between the parties.   This would clearly amount to deficiency in service as it is clearly against the agreed terms of the parties.

10.       It is also evident that due to non-cutting of the crops at the appropriate time the crops loses its value and it would cause monetary loss to the complainant.   Therefore, as once the sugarcane crop was raised by the complainant / cultivators with the consent or agreement given by the sugar mills it is the bounden duty of the sugar mills like the opposite party to issue cutting order at the appropriate time i.e. between 10 to 12 months.  It is clear negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party when no such cutting order was issued at the appropriate time and hence they are liable to compensate the complainant for the loss of crops and for the mental agony suffered by him.  In the facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation arrived at by the Learned District Commission that the complainant is eligible for payment of Rs.1,59,000/- after deducting the cutting charges and transport charges from the value of sugarcane raised in the field of the complainant to the extent of 3 acres is justifiable.  Thus we confirm the findings rendered by the District Commission.  Thus, the point Nos.1 & 2 are answered in favour of the complainant.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the learned District Commission, Perambalur made in C.C.No.29/2011. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. 

 

 

S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                                                                             R. SUBBIAH             

          MEMBER                                                                                                       PRESIDENT