STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION

BIHAR, PATNA

Appeal No. 65 of 2021

Ramashish Singh, Cane Manager, New Swadeshi Sugar Mills, through Rajesh Kumar Pandey, Cane Manager, New Swadeshi Sugar Mills, Male, aged about 54 years, Son of Late Jay Prakash Pandey, Residing at New Swadeshi Sugar Mill, Distillery Colony, Narkatiyaganj, PO- Narkatiyaganj, District- West Champaran

                                                                                                      … Appellant

Versus

Satyanarayan Prasad Yadav, S/o- Late Nepal Yadav, R/o- Village- Mandiya, PO- Sahodara, PS- Sahodara, District- West Champaran, Bihar.

                                                                                             …. Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant: Adv. Bipin Bihari

Counsel for the Respondent: Adv. Arbind Kumar Singh & Adv. Prashant Kumar & Manaur Alam

Before,

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar, President

Mr. Ram Prawesh Das, Member

Dated 29.05.2023

As per Sanjay Kumar, President.

O r d e r

1. Present appeal has been filed on behalf of Opposite party/appellant for setting aside the judgment and order dated 22.09.2021 passed by Ld. District Consumer Forum, West Champaran in Complaint Case no. 57 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the Ld. District Consumer Forum has allowed the Complaint case and directed appellant /opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation within 3 months from the date of order.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case is that complainant is farmer and supplier of sugarcane of opposite party /New Swadeshi Sugar Mills. It is further stated that on 04.03.2012 complainant carried sugarcane from his tractor trailor for supply in the sugar mill, after receiving the procurement order from the sugar mill but his trailor loaded with sugarcane overturned in yard of sugar mill  due to bad condition of the road and as complainant was clearing the road with the help of his labours, the trailor loaded with sugarcane was removed by JCB send by opposite party which damaged the trailor to the extent of Rs. 35,000/- due to negligent act of the driver of the JCB.
3. Complainant demanded Rs. 35,000/- as compensation for damages caused to the trailor by submitting an application to the cane manager on which the cane manager sought report from the yard in-charge upon which yard in-charge recommended and thereafter, complainant met the cane manager to pay the compensation along with payment for sugarcane but the management of sugar company made the payment of supplied sugarcane only and did not pay compensation with respect to damage caused to the trailor.
4. The complainant filed a consumer complaint case before the District Consumer Forum, West Champaran for payment of compensation with respect to damage caused to the trailor.
5. Notices were issued and appellant appeared and filed his written statement denying the allegations made in the complaint petition. It was further stated that the trailor of the complainant was removed to unblock the road to resume the normal traffic as same was causing inconvenience and discomfort to others. The yard in-charge never recommended for the payment of compensation and complainant has not produced any such recommendation before the District Consumer Forum.
6. It is further stated that complainant does not come within the definition of consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and allegations as made does not constitute any deficiency in service within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Complainant himself was negligent in carrying the loaded sugarcane in his trailor as a result of which tractor was overturned and road was blocked and in order to clear the obstruction of road the trailor was removed and free flow of traffic was restored.
7. The District Consumer Forum on the basis of evidences placed on record held that on said date the tractor with trailor loaded with sugarcane of complainant had gone to sugarmill of opposite party. The private road in the yard within the sugar mill was damaged and it was responsibility of opposite party to keep and maintain private road in sugar mill in a good condition. It was further observed that non examination of yard incharge indicates ill intention of the opposite party and further ordered opposite party to compensate complainant by paying Rs. 25,000/- as compensation, aggrieved by which present appeal has been filed on behalf of opposite party. 
8. Counsel for the appellant submits that complainant is not a consumer within the definition of Consumer Protection Act, as complainant has neither purchased any goods nor hired or availed any service from opposite party after making any payment or promising any payment.
9. Counsel for the complainant/respondent submits that opposite party/appellant has selected a set of farmers in the area for growing sugarcane for the sugar mill. The agreement entered into the sugar mill and farmer clearly postulates that there is an assurance that the crop will be purchased by the sugar mill and the crop was not meant for sale by the farmer in the open market as such complainant is a consumer. Counsel for the respondent has relied upon M/s National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. Madhusudan Reddy reported in AIR 2012 SC 1160 para 33 in Civil Appeal no. 7543 of 2004. & Shri Nitin Jairam Gadkari Vs. Balkrishna Vasantrao Tandon dated 23 February, 2017 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra.
10.  Heard the parties.
11. A person who buys any goods for consideration which has been paid or promised to be paid or partly paid and partly promised to be paid would be consumer within the meaning Consumer Protection Act. Similarly if a person hires or avails any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised to be paid or partly paid and partly promised to be paid comes within the definition of consumer. In present case the complainant does not satisfy any of the twin conditions to come within the definition of consumer as he has neither purchased any goods from appellant nor has hired or availed any service from the appellant for any consideration as such the complaint case was not maintainable before the District Consumer Forum. Neither complainant is a consumer nor the opposite party is a service provider or seller of any goods. Even otherwise the relation between the appellant and the complainant is of business to business relationship and not business to consumer relationship, as such does not fall within the ambit of
    Consumer Protection Act.  
12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.09.2021 passed by the District Consumer Forum, West Chamapran in Complaint Case no. 57 of 2012 is set aside and complaint case filed before the District Consumer Forum is dismissed as not maintainable.

(Ram Prawesh Das)                                                                                                                        (Sanjay Kumar,J)

       Member                                                                                                                                        President

Md. Fariduzzama