Maharashtra

StateCommission

A/04/2347

SHRI. SURESH NATHU DHODGE - Complainant(s)

Versus

NASHIK ZILLA KANDA BATATA UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANGH LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

-

11 Oct 2011

ORDER

BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
 
First Appeal No. A/04/2347
(Arisen out of Order Dated 20/09/2004 in Case No. 47/2003 of District Nashik)
 
1. SHRI. SURESH NATHU DHODGE
IJMANE, TAL BAGLAN, DIST NASHIK.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. NASHIK ZILLA KANDA BATATA UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
OFFICE AT 2954-E, NEW AGRA RD, NASHIK-422011.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar PRESIDING MEMBER
 Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
 
PRESENT:
Appellant absent.
Shri Dinkar Hadole, Manager for the respondent present.
......for the Appellant
 
ORDER

Per Shri Dhanraj Khamatkar, Hon’ble Member

          This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 20/09/2004 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nashik in consumer complaint No.47/2003.

 

2.       The facts leading to this appeal can be summerised as under :-

          The complainant/appellant had deposited an amount of `5,115/- for purchase of seeds.  However, as the seeds were not available, it was promised by opponent that whenever seeds will be available, they will give delivery of the seeds.  However, opponent had not supplied the seeds.  Hence, complainant/appellant had filed consumer complaint praying refund of amount he paid along with interest @ 18% p.a., `5 Lakhs for mental torture and `1,000/- as costs.

 

3.       Opponent had contested the complaint stating that the complainant is not a consumer and the complaint is not a consumer dispute.  The opponent has contended that the amount paid by the complainant/appellant is not for purchase of seeds, but to prove that the complainant/appellant is a member of Co-operative Society and prayed for dismissal of complaint.  The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum during proceeding observed that on receipt produced by the complainant/appellant, it is seen that receipt is for seeds and the date of receipt is 10/07/2001 and observed that complainant/appellant will not wait for seeds for a period of one year.  Normally, seeds are purchased as per season of the crop and observed that no person intending to purchase seeds wait for a year and observed that the complainant/appellant is not a consumer and dismissed the complaint.  It is against this order that the present appeal is filed.

 

4.       Admittedly, the appellant/complainant had purchased seeds and the date of purchase is 10/07/2001.  When the appellant/complainant purchased the seeds how he has waited for a period of one year for supply of the same.  No where in the complaint he has stated that why he waited for a period of one year.  Had he genuinely paid the amount for purchase of seeds he would not have waited.  District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances has passed the order.  We find that the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is just and proper and the appeal is devoid of any substance.  We hold accordingly and pass the following order :-

                   -: ORDER :-

1.                 Appeal is dismissed.

2.                 The order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is hereby confirmed.

3.                 Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.

 

Pronounced

Dated 11th October 2011.

 

 

 
 
[Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar]
Member

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.