BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT  HYDERABAD.

F.A.  114/2009 against C.C.  79/2007,  Dist. Forum, Chittoor

Between:

1)  The Foreman

P. Chandrasekhar

Shri Vani Sugars & Industries Ltd.

Belupalle (V&P)

Baireddipalle Mandal

Chittoor Dist.

2)  General  Manager (Canes)

Shri Vani Sugars & Industries Ltd.)

Punganur Town, Chittoor Dist.                  ***                           Appellants/OPs

And

M. Ranga Reddy

S/o. M. Ramachandra Reddy

Age: 45 years

R/o. Marumooru (V&P)

Palamaner Mandal

Chittoor Dist.                                              ***                         Respondent/

Complainant

Counsel for the Appellants:                         M/s.  M. Venkata Ramana Reddy

Counsel for the Respondent:                       M/s.  M. Shashikala Devi

CORAM:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.

                                                                   &

                                 SMT.M.SHREESHA, LADY MEMBER.
                                                         

FRIDAY, THIS THE TWENTY EIGTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN

ORAL ORDER:  (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President.)

***

1)                 This is an appeal preferred by the opposite parties against the order of the Dist. Forum  directing   it pay Rs. 28,560/-   with interest @ 9% p.a., from 16.6.2007  till realization together costs of Rs. 1,500/-.

2)                 The case of the complainant in brief is that  he is an agriculturist.   He entered into an agreement  with  Shri Vani  Sugars for supply of  90 MTs  of  sugarcane  to the factory for the season 2006-07 wherein it has  agreed to purchase at Rs. 1,010/- per MT.    He planted sugar cane  in an extent of   3.00  cents  in  his lands.  He also availed crop loan of Rs. 4,,400/- from  the appellant  for raising the crop.    In the month of  May, 2007 crop cutting order was given for single  trip of sugarcane and accordingly he had supplied 23.5 MTs of  sugarcane to the factory on  16.6.2007.    In fact the factory has to supply the vehicle for  transportation of sugarcane.  When it did not arrange, he  engaged a private lorry   by incurring  Rs. 8,560/- which the factory was bound to pay.      The foreman R2 informed him to cut two lorry loads of sugarcane  and he would send crop cutting order.    Accordingly he harvested  the sugarcane  and placed in his fields for which photographs were taken.  Despite his several approaches  neither crop cutting order was given  nor sugarcane was lifted.    On that he sent a registered letter on  28.6.2007, however to no avail.    As such  he had sustained loss of 32 MTs of sugarcane.  When he informed  the Agricultural Officer and Revenue  Officials they gave certificate to that effect.    He had sustained loss of 66.49  MTs of sugarcane due to their negligence.   Therefore he sought cost of  66.49  MTs of sugarcane with interest  @ 18% p.a., besides compensation of  Rs. 50,000/-  towards mental agony  and costs.

3)                 The respondent sugar factory resisted the case.  They alleged that there was no agreement for supply of sugarcane.    In fact all the ryots were residing  adjacent to the factory have to supply sugarcane.   The complainant  has supplied 23.5 MTs  sugarcane The complainant had to supply the sugarcane to the factory  through his vehicle only.   It was not liable to arrange for the vehicle.     There was no deficiency in service  on its part.       As per section 65 ©  of Sugar Cane Rules  any dispute  has to be referred to  the  Cane Commissioner  for his decision.  The Dist. Forum has no jurisdiction.  Therefore  it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4)                 The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to  A5 marked  while R1 filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. B1 to B3 marked. 

5)                 The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence  placed on record opined that  PW1 could establish  that he supplied  23.5 MTs of sugarcane  by lorry  from his field  to the factory incurring  Rs. 8,560/-  which he was entitled to besides loss of sugarcane   assessed at Rs. 10,000/-.  Therefore the  factory is directed to  pay the same with interest  @ 9% p.a., from 10.6.2007  till the date of realization together with costs of Rs. 1,500/-.

6)                 Aggrieved by the said order,  the opposite parties preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate  the facts or law in correct perspective.    It did not consider the fact that  there was no consumer relationship  between them.  The complainant was a supplier  and it was a purchaser that too for commercial purpose.    The complainant could not prove that  he raised sugarcane crop in the fields owned by  him  by filing  Adangal or  other record.    As per  Rule 65 of  A.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1961 the matter  has to be referred to  Cane Commission for arbitration.   He did not produce any  evidence to show that  he engaged a lorry and that there was no proof  that  they have to reimburse the transportation charges.  Therefore they prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

7)                 The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?

8)                 It is an undisputed fact that  the complainant  agreed to  supply   90 MT of  sugarcane from out of 3 acres of land owned by him for the season 2006-07.    It may be stated herein that  clause-4 of  agreement stipulates that the factory had to give  three cutting orders  in his favour and if he fails to supply he will lose  his right to  supply the sugarcane.    It is also not in dispute  that  single  trip cutting  order  was  issued under  Ex. A1  for  total aggregate quantity of 90 MT.   Ex. A3  was issued at the time when the complainant had entered into  an agreement  for supply 90 MT of sugarcane.   There  is no reason for him  to  allege  but  for the fact that the crop was dried up due to non-issuing of cutting orders.    Evidently the complainant did not mitigate the loss by selling away the crop when the factory did not issue  the cutting order.    At any rate the Dist. Forum has awarded  Rs. 10,000/-  towards loss of crop.  The complainant did not prefer any cros-appeal against  inadequacy of compensation granted to him by the Dist. Forum.    Since the complainant could establish  that he had  supplied 23.5 MT of  sugarcane  and sustained loss the Dist. Forum  has rightly awarded   Rs. 18,560/-.

9)                In regard to  jurisdiction, by virtue of Section 3 of C.P. Act  a consumer has an alternative  remedy  and is not bound by the terms of agreement vide   Secretary, Thirumurgan Co-operative Agriculture Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha reported in I (2004) CPJ 1 (SC).     We do not see any mis-appreciation of fact or law by the Dist. Forum in this regard.   We do not see any merits in the appeal.

10)               In the result the appeal is dismissed with costs computed at Rs. 2,000/-.  Time for compliance four weeks.

1)      _______________________________

PRESIDENT                 

2)      ________________________________

 MEMBER           

   Dt.  28. 01.  2011.

*pnr

“UP LOAD – O.K.”