BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

PRESENT: Sri Patil Vithal Rao, B.Sc., LL.B.,President

                Smt. Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Lady Member

Tuesday, the 26^th day of November, 2013

CC. No. 48 of 2012

Between:

Mohammad Munawar Ali S/o Mohd. Haneef,

Aged: 48 years, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o Maniyarpally village,

Mandal Koheer, District Medak.                                    

                                                                                     ……Complainant                        

                   And

1. Smt. Raj Shree, Chair person and Managing Director,

  Trident Sugars Limited, Corporate Office “The Uffizi”

  338, Avinashi Road, Peelamedu, Coimbatore,

  Tamil Nadu – 641 004.

2. The General Manager, Trident Sugars Ltd.,

    Madhunagar, Zaheerabad, Dist. Medak.

3. The Commissioner, Sugarcane,

    Opp: Manasa Hospital,

    Sangareddy town, Dist. Medak.

4. The Cane Development Officer,

    Trident Sugars Ltd.,

    Madhu Nagar, Zaheerabad, Dist. Medak.

5. The Field Officer, Trident Sugars Ltd.,

    Circle Digwal, Mandal Koheer, Dist. Medak.

                                                                                         ……Opposite parties

                        This case came up for final hearing before us on 21.11.2013                                                                   in the presence of Sri B. Krishna Rao, Advocate for complainant, Sri Ashok Patil, Advocate for opposite party nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5 and Sri Ch. Venkata Ravi, Asst. Cane Commissioner, Sangareddy for opposite party no. 3, on hearing the arguments and perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:

O R D E R

(Per Se Sri Patil Vithal Rao, President)

                 The complainant, an agriculturist, has approached this Forum by way of the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by contending, in brief, that he planted sugarcane in 4.00 acres of his land in Sy. no. 41, situated at Maniyarpally village, Kohir Mandal, Medak Distict in the third week of November, 2010 and entered into an agreement with the factory, Trident Sugar Limited, (the opposite parties no. 1 to 4 & 5 are officials of the factory) to supply sugarcane for the crushing season, 2011-2012. The complainant has further contended that the factory did not supply fertilizer and that the opposite party no. 5 did not issue permit for cutting and transporting sugarcane in time resulting in damage of the sugarcane and loss to the complainant. As per the complainant, he got issued legal notice to the opposite parties and then only he could secure permits and supply sugarcane, but the opposite parties failed to pay its value by way of remitting in his bank account and threatened him to withdraw the said legal notice to claim the value of sugarcane amounting to Rs. 70,000/-. Further, as per the complainant, he got issued another legal notice on which the opposite parties credited the value of the sugarcane in the SBH, branch Kohir, instead of the complainant’s regular account in A.P.G.V.B., branch Bilalpur, and that thus deviated the normal mode of payment of the bills. The complainant has also contended that the opposite parties bore grudge against him and shown favour to other farmers and did not enter in to fresh agreement with him for the subsequent crushing season. On these counts the complainant has claimed damages of Rs. 2,00,000/-, compensation of Rs. 50,000/- with costs against the opposite parties and also sought directions against them to provide fertilizer and also to issue permits to him to supply sugarcane for the crushing year 2013-2014.

2.           The opposite parties nos. 2, 4 & 5 filed a common written version and opposed the complaint on the grounds, in brief, that the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and also this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, but he has to approach the opposite party no. 3 to adjudicate the dispute under the A.P. Sugar Cane (Regulation of supply & Purchase) Act, 1961. Their further defense in that the complainant is not a share holder of the factory and regular supplier of sugarcane and that he never approached the opposite party no. 5 seeking permits and that the factory is not bound to supply fertilizer to the farmers. As per the written version, the complainant entered into an agreement to supply sugarcane with the factory belatedly only on 20.01.2012 though he made plantation on 11.10.2010 and that even then the factory issued harvesting permits to him without any bias, irregularity and negligence and also paid the bills even  before receiving of his legal notice dated 21.03.2012. They have also contended that the opposite party no. 1 is not concerned with day to day affairs of the factory and as such he is not a necessary party to the case. For these reasons they prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.

3.              The opposite party no. 1 has filed a memo and adopted the joint written version of the opposite parties nos. 2, 4 & 5.

4.                The opposite party no. 3 has filed a separate written version stating, in brief, that he is no way connected with the transaction in dispute and that the complainant has to approach the sugarcane commissioner, Hyderabad for redressal as this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. Therefore the prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.

5.            The complainant has filed his evidence affidavit as PW. 1 and marked Exs. A1 to A3 to substantiate his claim. The opposite party no. 4 has filed his evidence affidavit as DW. 1 for himself and opposite parties nos. 1,2 & 5 and marked Exs. B1 to B9, in defense.

                  Both the parties have filed their written versions. Heard.

6.              Now the points for consideration are:

1). Whether the complainant is a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?

2). Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

3). Whether the complaint is barred by jurisdiction?

4). To what relief?

7. Point no. 1:

                   A person can claim to be a “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 only if he buys any goods for a consideration paid in part or full; or promised for such payment under any system of deferred payment. In the present case the complainant, as per the alleged agreement, did not purchase any goods from the factory of the opposite parties by making any payment but on the other hand the factory purchased sugarcane from him. Even otherwise the complainant did not file the alleged agreement between him and the factory for perusal. Un-disputably there was no agreement of hiring of service for consideration between the parties. Thus when the complainant is only a seller of goods, but not a purchaser, he cannot claim to be a “consumer” under the Act, 1986. This view is fortified by the  un reported decisions dated 08.08.2013 in R.P.no. 3588 of 2012 and R.P. no. 3589 of 2012 between “General Manager, Trident Sugar Limited, Madhunagar, Zaheerabad, Medak, A.P. And Mohd. Mahboob Ali and Another”. This decision was based on the earlier decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in “Purna Sahakar Shakar Karkhana Pravheni Versus Tatyaraoramrao Kate Parvheni”, [II (1994) CPJ 107 (NC)]. In view of this legal position the complainant cannot claim to be a “consumer” and as such the present complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The point is thus against the complaint.

8.  Point no. 2:

                As per the material on record, the complainant is owner of the land admeasuring 4 acre in Sy. No. 41/A situated at Maniyarpally village of Medak District (vide copy of pattedar pass book, Ex. A1) and entered into an agreement dated 20.1.2012 vide Ex. B1 to supply sugarcane, from the land to the extent of 2 acre, raised by him. Admittedly he had planted the said crop in the month of November, 2010 without any agreement with the factory but even then the factory agreed to purchase the same when it was ready for crushing in the year 2012. This aspect clearly shows that the factory was not at fault but the complainant himself acted irresponsibly in planting the sugarcane. Despite said fact, as per the trip sheets under Exs. B2 to B5, the factory issued permits in the months of January and February of 2012. Therefore the legal notice dated 18.01.2012 under Ex. A2 of the complainant becomes un-reliable. Even otherwise the complainant did not file any proof of its service on the opposite parties when they have specifically contended that it was never received by them.

                   No doubt the opposite parties received legal notice vide Ex. B6 from the complainant sometime in the month of April, 2012 but by that time the payment of the cost of sugarcane was already made to the complainant as evident from the copies of bills, Ex. B7 and payments statement, Ex. B8 and that he had realized the same through his bank. Therefore there is no force in his allegation about negligence and bias attitude on the part of the opposite parties.

                   It is further to be noted that after entering into the agreement in the month of January, 2012 under Ex. B1, the factory, to help the complainant, entered into another agreement in the last week of June, 2012 vide Ex. B9 to purchase his sugarcane Ratoon left in remaining part of his land.

9.          In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above it is manifestly clear that the complainant has utterly failed to establish alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. No doubt the learned counsel for complainant has relied on the following two decisions :

                    1). “Lucknow D.A. vs. M.K. Gupta”, 1993 CPJ 7 (SC) and

 2). “Faquir Chand Gulanti vs. Uppal Agency Private Limited and another”, 2008 CTJ 1038 (SC) (CP),

                   but these two decisions are of no avail to the complainant for the simple reason that he is not a “consumer” as held in point no. 1 above. Further the facts of the said decisions entirely differ from the facts of the present case.

10.            The point is therefore answered against the complainant.

11. Point no. 3:

               The present dispute is regarding supply and purchase of cane between a factory and cane grower. Therefore only the cane commissioner is competent to decide it under the A.P.S.C.(Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1961.  The relevant provision of law, for beneficial use, is extracted below:-

Section 65: Any dispute(a) regarding the supply and purchase of cane between a factory and cane grower or a cane growers’ co-operative society, or between members of a cane growers’ co-operative society, and the society,

(b)      xxxx          xxx              xxx

(c.)     xxxx          xxx              xxx

                The cane commissioner shall decide it himself or refer it to arbitration.

Section 66: If the Cane Commissioner himself decides the dispute referred to him under rule 65, his decision shall be final subject to appeal or revision under sections 17 and 18.

12.          Therefore we hold that this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the lis under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thus the complaint is barred by jurisdiction.

                  The point is answered accordingly.

13. Point no. 4:

                   In view of the conclusions arrived at point nos. 1 to 3, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

14.          In the result, the complaint is dismissed but in the circumstances without costs.

                     Dictated to Stenographer, after transcription and correction the order is pronounced by us in the open court today on this the 26^th day of November, 2013.

                     Sd/-                                                Sd/-

                   LADY MEMBER                               PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                 WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the complainant:                                            For the opposite parties:-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For the complainant:                                                   For the opposite parties:-

                           Sd/-                                                          Sd/-

                   LADY MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT

Copy to

1. The Complainant
2. The Opp.parties
3. Spare copy