For Complainant         :           Sri S. N. Achary, Advocate & associates.

For OP No.1                 :           None.

For OP No.2                 :           Sri Trinath Das, Advocate.

For OP No.3                 :           Sri Sachidananda Mishra, Advocate & associates.​

1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he is cultivating Ac 3.34 Cents of land and recognised by RMC through I.C. No.05309.  It is submitted that in the year, 2014 he delivered 60 Qtls of paddy to OP.1 which costs Rs.78, 600/- and submitted all required documents for release of cost of paddy but the Ops did not transfer money to the accounts of the complainant.  It is submitted that after repeated approach, the OP.1 disclosed that due to some error, the amount of the complainant was credited by OP.2 in the bank of OP.3.  The complainant submitted that he is having passbook at IOB vide A/c. No.02870100000221 and he submitted the copy of passbook to the OP.1 during delivery of paddy but the OP.2 credited the amount in the Indusind bank wrongly.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to pay Rs.78, 600/- towards cost of paddy with interest and to pay Rs.20, 000/- towards compensation to the complainant.

2.                     The OP.1 in spite of valid notice neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner.  The OP.2 filed counter contending that as per paddy procurement policy, after purchasing the paddy the OP.1 is required to send the payment advice to KCC Bank, Sadar Branch, Jeypore with bank details of the farmer for crediting the amount in their respective accounts and the concerned Branch Manager is required to send the advice along with farmers list to the Head Office of KCC Bank, Jeypore for payment and the OP.2 will send the papers to Axis Bank, Jeypore who is the authorised agent of OP.2 bank for payment.  In the present case the OP.1 sent farmers list along with Cheque No.114608 dt.20.06.2014 for Rs.50, 31,710/- for payment to farmers to Sadar Branch, KCC Bank, Jeypore and in the same list the name of the complainant is mentioned at Sl. No.12 and the amount payable is Rs.78, 600/- with instruction to credit the amount to the Account of Kishore Chandra Nayak in the Indusind Bank, Jeypore vide IFSC Code No.INDB0000306 and A/c. No.100011999901.  It is further contended that the OP.2 sent a Cheque bearing No.022253 dt.20.06.2014 for Rs.50, 31,710/- to the OP.3 with request to transfer the proceeds to the credit of farmers and accordingly the Branch Manager, Axis Bank has transferred Rs.78, 600/- to Indusind Bank, Jeypore A/c. No.100011999901 belongs to the complainant, Sri Kishore Chandra Nayak through NEFT dt.23.06.2014.  It is also contended that the OP.2 has no knowledge that the complainant has an A/c bearing No.20870100000221 in the IOB.  Denying the wrong credit of the amount with OP.3 and also denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP.2 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The OP No.3 also filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the complainant is not a consumer of OP.3 and as such a stranger to them.  It is contended that the complaint against OP.3 can never be terms as consumer dispute and the OP has not committed any deficiency in service.  It is further contended that as per advice of Ops 1 & 2, the Axis bank has credited the amount as per list and it is seen that an amount of Rs.78, 600/- of the complainant has been deposited in the account No.100011999901 (IFSC Code-INDB0000306) and on verification it is found that the said account belongs to one Surendra Nath Mohanty, a customer of OP.3 at Sundargarh branch.  The OP.3 also contended that they cannot touch the account of any person without his consent and the Axis Bank who has transferred the amount can take initiative for reversal of the amount by making necessary correspondence.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP.3 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

4.                     Parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases and the complainant as well as OP.2 filed affidavits.  Heard from OP.3 through its A/R and perused the materials on record.

5.                     In this case before going into the other merits of the case, it is incumbent on our part to see as to whether the complainant is a consumer of the Ops in view of preliminary objection.  If he comes under the definition of consumer, we will go to the merits of this case.

6.                     It is seen from the record that the complainant is a farmer and has sold his paddy to OP.1 subject to realisation of cost of the paddy from OP.1. As such the complainant is a seller of paddy whereas the OP.1 is a purchaser.  A seller cannot be a consumer under C. P. Act.  Hence the complainant in this case is not a consumer of OP.1.

7.                     It is further seen that the OP.2 is the KCC Bank, Jeypore and the OP.3 is the Indusind Bank at Jeypore.  There is no evidence on record to the effect that the complainant is either an account holder of OP.2 or OP.3.  Hence the complainant is not the consumer of Ops 2 & 3.

8.                     In the above premises, the complainant is not a consumer of Ops in this case and hence he cannot maintain a consumer dispute against the Ops.  Thus the allegation of the complainant against the Ops does not hold any leg to stand and hence it needs dismissal.  In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant but without costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

(to dict.)