1.                     The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that he registered his name with OP.1 as seed producer and purchased Pooja variety of paddy to supply paddy seeds after harvesting.  In this way, after receiving paddy seeds the OP.1 calculated the value of it to the tune of Rs.1, 50,000/- to be received by the complainant through his bank account supplied to the OP.  As the complainant did not get his money, he inquired with OP.1 and found that the money is wrongly credited by Ops to the A/c No.31140797796 belongs to one Seikh Aziz who is dead and a sum of Rs.70, 000/- has been withdrawn from the said account through ATM withdrawal.  It is submitted that the bank stopped the account and transferred a sum of Rs.80, 000/- to the complainant and Rs.70, 000/- is yet to be paid by the Ops.  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.70, 000/- towards cost of the paddy seeds and to pay Rs.30000/- towards compensation to the complainant.

2.                     The Ops 1 & 2 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the complainant was supplied with foundation seeds and during registration the complainant had supplied front page copy of his passbook to OP.1 and accordingly OP.1 sent all details of the complainant to OP.2 for release of initial payment for the seed supplied by the complainant.  It is further contended that the OP.2 made payment on 23.3.2015 through account transfer to the A/c number supplied by the complainant but thereafter, the complainant filed an application before OP.1 that he had not received the balance amount of Rs.70, 000/-.  It is also contended that after due inquiry, the Ops could know that the initial payment of Rs.1, 48,882/- was transferred to A/c No.31140797796 which belongs to one Seikh Aziz who is already dead and a sum of Rs.68, 000/- has been withdrawn from the said account through ATM withdrawals.  It is also further contended that on request, the OP.3 stopped the account and transferred Rs.80, 000/- to the fresh account number supplied by the complainant.  The Ops submitted that as per the account number supplied by the complainant, the initial payment was deposited and it is the fault of OP.3 if he had deposited the amount in a wrong account.  Thus denying any fault on their part, the Ops 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 it has no knowledge regarding any transaction between the complainant and Ops 1 & 2 except the a/c No.31140797796 belongs to one Seikh Aziz being maintained by OP.3 and the said account holder is dead.  It is further contended that a sum of Rs.70, 000/- has been drawn from the said account through ATM withdrawals.  The OP further contended that the payment of Rs.1, 50,000/- was made by the Old Town Branch of SBI, Bhubaneswar as per the instruction and A/c number provided by OP No.2 and the OP.3 has no role in this matter.  Thus denying any cause of action against OP.3 and also denying any fault on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

4.                     The complainant has filed certain documents along with affidavit in support of his case.  The OP No.3 also has filed certain documents.  We also heard them and perused the materials available on record.

5.                    In this case, the complainant stated that he was engaged as a Seed Producer by OP.1 and accordingly the OP.1 sold foundation seeds to the complainant for producing certified seeds and hence he is a consumer of the Ops.  The Ops 1 & 2 on the other hand challenged the submission of the complainant that he is the consumer of Ops 1 & 2.  Before going to the other merits of this case, we are inclined to consider the preliminary issue raised by the Ops.

6.                     The complainant stated that he has purchased foundation seeds from OP.1 but failed to mention the cost of foundation seeds paid to OP.1.  The complainant has also not furnished the money receipt in support of purchase of foundation seeds.  The Ops 1 & 2 in their counter also has not stated about the cost of foundation seeds received from the complainant.  As no consideration is paid and in absence of any provision regarding sale of foundation seeds on consideration by the Ops, the complainant cannot be terms as consumer u/s.2 (1) (d) of C.P. Act, 1986.

7.                     While coming to the merits of this case, it is seen that the Ops 1 & 2 have purchased the certified seeds from the complainant and has considered initial payment of Rs.1, 48,882/- in favour of the complainant.  Thus the complainant has sold the paddy seeds to the Ops who have purchased the same from the complainant on consideration.  In view of above facts, the complainant can be termed as reverse consumer.

8.                     Further it is seen that the OP.2 has made payment to the farmers through SBI, Old Town Branch, Bhubaneswar and has apparently supplied a wrong accounts number in case of the complainant.  The said bank has disbursed the amount as per the account number supplied which does not belong to the complainant.  It is seen that the complainant has not made the Old Town Branch of SBI as necessary party to this case.  However, after due inquiry, the complainant has received Rs.80, 000/- from the Ops 1 & 2.  In the above circumstances, we expect that the Ops 1 & 2 would like to pay the rest part of dues to the complainant on due process.

9.                     With above observation, we dismiss the case of the complainant but without costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

(to dict.)