DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  06^th  day of February, 2023

Present      :   Sri. Vinay Menon V.,  President

                  :  Smt. Vidya A., Member                        

                  :  Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                Date of Filing: 15/10/2022    

                         CC/191/2022

Asokan,

S/o. Balakrishnan,

Odukurinji,

Nanniyode,  Chittur,

Palakkad – 678 534.                                        -                       Complainant

(By Adv.J.Kamesh)

                                                                                    Vs

1. National Seeds Corporation,

Rep.by Area Manager,

Kanjikkode,

Near ITI, Palakkad.

2. Accounts Officer,

National Seeds Corporation,

Office No.22C, SIDCO Industrial Estate,

Chennai – 600 050.

3. Marketing Manager,

National Seeds Corporation,

Office No.22C, SIDCO Industrial Estate,

Chennai – 600 050.

4. National Seeds Corporation,

Rep.by General Manager (Production),

Beej Bhavan, Pusa Complex,

New Delhi  - 110 012.                              -                       Opposite parties

                   (By Adv. K.Dhananjayan)

O R D E R   O N   T H E   Q U E S T I O N   O F   M A I N T A I N A B I L I T Y

By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1. Complaint grievance, abridged, is that the complainant started production/harvest of raw paddy seeds at the behest of opposite parties. Once the seeds are matured enough the same would be purchased by the opposite parties. Due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties the total processed raw seed had to be sold at a loss.  The relevant documents were also not handed over to the complainant.  At present an amount of Rs.2,52,000/- is due from the opposite party. Alleging this drawback to be a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, this complaint is filed.
2. Since the pleadings did not present a scenario wherein the complainant availed any product or service from the opposite parties by way of payment of consideration, it was decided to consider the maintainability of this complaint as a preliminary issue.
3. Counsel for complainant was heard in detail. He banked his arguments based on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme court in Nandan Bio-matrix  Ltd. (M/s) v/s S.Ambika Devi and Others reported in AIR 2020 SC 3136.  The complainant drew parallels between the facts and circumstances of the case and argued vehemently that the facts herein give raise to a consumer/seller/ service provider relationship between the parties. He sought for a complete trial and disposal on merits.
4. Counsel for opposite party vehemently opposed complainant’s arguments.
5. We went through the facts and circumstances in this case as well as the facts and circumstances that lead to the interference by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nandan Bio-matrix case referred to supra.

In the case before the Supreme Court, the appellant/opposite party before the District Commission (Corporation) sold seeds to the Respondent/complainant before the District Commission.  The complainant harvested raw seeds from the seeds she purchased by way of payment of consideration and resold the raw seeds thus harvested back to the opposite party Corporation. In such an eventuality, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the complaint before the District Commission was maintainable.

Herein, in the case before us, what is seen is that the complainant did not purchase seeds from the opposite party. He had entered into an agreement with the opposite parties to sell his raw seeds to the opposite party.  The complainant is aggrieved by the losses that occurred to him in the course of this transaction.

6. On a perusal of the facts and circumstances, we are unable to draw parallels between the case before Supreme Court and the case before us.  The complainant had not  purchased seeds or availed any services from the opposite parties. All he had done was enter into an agreement for sale of seeds with the opposite parties. This complaint is a money suit simpliciter in disguise.
7. On finding thus, we hold that there is no consumer – seller – service provider relationship between the complainant and the opposite parties.  That being so, this Commission is barred from considering this case on merits and lacks jurisdiction.
8. Accordingly, this complaint is dismissed.

                  Pronounced in open court on this the 06^th day of  February, 2023.        

                                                                                                                  Sd/-

                                                                                             Vinay Menon V

                                                      President

       Sd/-

   Vidya.A

                       Member        

       Sd/-                                             Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                      Member

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.