This appeal is directed against the final order dated 24/4/2014 delivered by the Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Cooch Behar in reference to CC/23/2013. The fact of the case in nutshell is that the respondents as joint consumers filed the consumer complaint jointly as per the provisions of Section 2(1) (d) (ii) of the CP Act, 1986 for getting relieves against the Jute Corporation of India, Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank and from the owner of Bhartiya Gramin Bhandar, Bhetaguri. Their case in nutshell is that they are the farmers of seasonal crops by profession and stored their produced crops that is jutes at Bhartiya Gramin Bhandar, Bhetaguri by obtaining pledge loan of 60 per cent at the value of jute stored on the basis of goodown receipts issued Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Bhetaguri Branch with a view to selling it to the Jute Corporation of India at profitable price. The Jute Corporation of India vide memo no. RO/COB/2012-2013 dated 15/05/2012 intimated the owner of Bhartiya Gramin Bhandar, Bhetaguri in respect of purchase of jutes in a promising price fixed from Rs. 3,800/- to 4,200/- per quintal. Subsequently, the complainants/respondents wanted to sell their jutes stored in the Gramin Bhandar while the JCI had denied to purchase the same. Though they were duty bound to purchase the jutes from the farmers directly in order to prevent the distress sale. The respondents/complainants then approached the JCI as well as the Banker Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank for making arrangements of the purchase of the stored jutes but both the parties and the JCI has denied to purchase the jutes at the rate of Rs. 3,800/- to 4,200/- per quintal. On the contrary, the JCI informed the Bhetaguri Krishi Gramin Mazdoor Sangha that in the Cooch Behar region the JCI was agreed to purchase jutes from the farmers at the rate of Rs. 2,200/- per quintal while the complainants could not sell out their jutes though they were pressurized to refund the loan amount to the Bank which they obtained from the Bank by pledging jutes. So, for their sufferings and mental pain and harassment they have prayed for compensation, consequential relieves from the Ops to the case. The Jute Corporation of India, Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank and the owner of Bharatiya Gramin Bhandar, Bhetaguri has contested the case by filing the written version. The complainant and the OP no. 1 to 3 did not file any evidence despite giving opportunities. The Kshetriya Gramin Bank has tendered the evidence-in-chief by affidavit. The both contesting parties of the case has filed their written note of argument and after hearing both sides Ld. Forum has delivered the impugned judgment. Ld. Forum after hearing all sides came to a conclusion that the complainants were not entitled to get any relief as they have prayed for but they were entitled to get litigation cost and compensation for their mental pain and agony and getting refund of the value of the jutes stored in the goodown with loan adjustments which could not be sold out to the JCI.

            Being aggrieved with this order this appeal follows on the ground that Ld. Forum has failed to understand the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and also has failed to understand that the complainants were not the consumers under the provisions of CP Act,1986, that the complainants were wanted to sell the products in their commercial activities, that the Ld. Forum has failed to understand there was no pledge agreement between complainant and the Bank and also the Jute Corporation of India has no obligation to procure jutes for higher rate where the JCI was mandated to purchase the jute at the rate of Rs. 2,200/- per quintal while the complainants intended to sell out their jutes at the rate of Rs. 3,800/- per quintal. According to the appellants the order of Ld. Forum unjustified, with full of errors and not vested in law. The appeal was registered before the Hon’ble State Commission, Kolkata Bench where the contesting parties of appeal has recorded their appearances and thereafter the appeal has reassigned here for disposal. Accordingly, the appeal was heard in presence of both the parties through their Ld. counsels.

D e c i s i o n s   w i t h   R e a s o n s

            During the course of arguments, Ld. Advocate of the appellant mentioned that here the complainants/respondents are different persons and they have no joint interest and for that reasons they had to file the case individually whereas without taking leave from the Ld. Forum, they have jointly filed the consumer complaint which is not acceptable under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The respondents countered this argument during the course of hearing the appeal that these complainants are consumers as per Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the CP Act, 1986. They are the beneficiaries of the service of the JCI of India and Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Bhetaguri Branch that the JCI is official agency of the Govt. of India who had to assist the jute cultivators in States where the crop is grown providing the minimum price support. And the petitioners/complainants were absolute cultivators and in order to save themselves from the distress sale of the crops, the Governments keep their in concurrence with the JCI, Bharatiya Gramin Bhandar, Bhetaguri Branch and Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank and under the policy of the scheme the complainants had stored their produced crops at goodown of Bhartiya Gramin Bhandar by pledging their jutes to obtain the loan and for the deliberate latches on the part of JCI, Bank and the owner of goodown, the bona fide consumers have sustained huge loss and for that reason, they have come to the arena of Consumer Fora and Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act supports their case. After going through entire record and after considering valuable arguments canvassed before this Commission it is well established that the complainants are well protected under the Consumer Protection Act to move their disputes before the Fora and during the pendency of the case JCI has approached before the Hon’ble High Court where Hon’ble High Court has categorically observed that the complainants of this case had the right and privilege under the arena of Consumer Protection Act and for that reason, Hon’ble Court has not interfered with the proceedings of the Ld. D.C.D.R.F. During the course of argument it is mentioned on the part of the Kshetriya Gramin Bank that the instant transaction of securing loan by the complainants from the bank was not a pledge loan and the Bank has nothing to do in this regard as because Bank was not empowered to arrange the sale out of the jute stored in the Bhetaguri Gramin Branch. Ld. Advocate of the JCI pointed out at the time of argument that the minimum support price was fixed for the area of Cooch Behar district Rs. 2,200/- per quintal while the complainant side relies upon the notification of Regional Manager, JCI, Cooch Behar dated 15/05/2012 which was completely related to the price settled at the rate of Rs. 3,800/- to 4,200/- per quintal only meant for commercial purposes. In this case, the complainants wanted to sell their jutes at the rate of Rs. 3,800/- to 4,200/- per quintal with the purpose of achieving the gains by doing the business of commercial purposes. And for that reason, this consumer complaint was bad in law and not sustainable under the provisions of CP Act, 1986. After the hearing of both sides this Commission also found that the Govt. of India has adopted the jute technology mission with market linkage of raw jute in order to assist jute growers by appropriate market support to enable them to get market price. But here in this case, very unfortunately, the authority concerned has not followed the mandates of jute technology mission and they have not given the safeguard of the interest of the cultivators. After going through the contention of both the parties, this Commission finds that the prime disputes of this case relates to the fact that in spite of having the provisions and in terms and conditions of the pledge loan, the Jute Corporation of India denied to purchase the jute of the complainants stored at the goodown of Bhetaguri Gramin Bhandar and the Bank who has sanctioned the loan did not take any proper initiative for selling out of the stored jute of the complainants. The goodown owner also has not taken proper care to sell out the jutes stored in his goodown.

            On the other hand, it is also found that the complainants were also liable to the extent for not taking proper and adequate steps in respect of payment of loan and selling of the stored jute in time for which they have become defaulter to the bank. Ld. Forum also in its finding came to a conclusion that the complainants were liable to repay the pledge loan amount together with interest in terms of loan agreements to Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Kshetriya Gramin Bank was also directed to have a close liaison with the owner of Kshetriya Gramin Bhandar under the supervision of Jute Corporation of India to dispose of the stored jute at the earliest possible opportunity of higher price of jutes and the sale proceeds should be properly and proportionately accounted for and the Bank loan with interest and goodown rent can be relinquished to the maximum extent and rest amount, if any, became due, are to be paid up in accordance with the proposition. The observation of Ld. Forum appears to be very sound, proper and within the domain of Consumer Protection Act and no irregularity could be brought to the notice of this Commission by the appellant side during the course of hearing the appeal. So, the order of Ld. Forum appears to be very convincing and sustainable and does not attract any interference in the appellate stage.    

            Hence, the appeal devoids of any merit. In order to make the order executable, this Commission thinks it fit that the order of the Ld. Forum should be effected not from the date of passing the order dated 24/04/2014 but from the day of final order of this appeal so that the judgment-debtors shall not be overburdened.

Hence it is ordered: -

            That the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest without any cost. The final order of Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Cooch Behar dated 24/04/2014 in reference to CC/23/2013 is hereby confirmed subject to enforcement of the order to be commenced from the day of receiving the copy of final order of this Commission by the parties to the case.

            Let the copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost and the same be communicated to the Ld. Concerned Forum through e-mail.