Karnataka

Chamrajnagar

CC/07/2012

Smt.Mahadevamma - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Asst.Director of Agriculture - Opp.Party(s)

MR.M.C.S.

22 May 2012

ORDER

ORDER

 

1. The complainant has filed the complaint against the O.P. alleging deficiency of service.

 

1. It has been stated by the complainant that she had filed an application under Suvarna Boomi Yojana, under which the Government of Karnataka  encourages the small farmers by giving financial  assistance.

 

1. The complainant was selected at Hobli head quarters in the lottery drawn. She was the 4^th person to be selected in the lottery on 30/05/2011.

 

1. The complainant owns sy.no.347/1 measuring 2.31 acres of land and does not own any other land otherthan this land.

 

1. The complainant is a small farmer and inspite of selecting her name in the lottery, she has not been given benefit  which she has entitled under Suvarna Boomi Yojana.

 

1. The O.P. has denied the allegations made against it. The complainant was selected  in the lottery. The complainant owns 04.09 acres of land in sy.no.375/2 and 2.31 acres of land in her name. The complainant and her husband in all owns 07 acres of land and therefore considered as big farmers. The scheme is applicable only to small and marginal families and it does not applicable to the complainant whose family owns more than 05 acres of land.

 

1. The complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable in law.

 

1. The following points arises for consideration.
   1. Whether the complaint  as brought before this Forum for the reliefs which  the complainant has sought is maintainable?
   2. Whether the complainant shows that there is  deficiency of service by the O.P?
   3. To what order the parties are entitled?

 

1. The finding for the above points are as follows

Point No.1: Negative.

Point No.2 &3: Does not arise.

 

REASONS

1. POINTNO.1:- The complainant’s case is that she is the marginal small family and entitled for the benefit given by the government under Suvarna Boomi Yojana. She has stated that in the lottery drawn by the O.P. she was selected. She owns only 2.31 acres of land and inspite of being a small family the government has not extended the benefit which she is  entitled  even though she has been selected in the lottery.

 

1. The complainant  has to show first that she is the consumer within the definition of Consumer Protection Act,1986, in order to obtain the relief.

 

1. The consumer has been defined insection 2(1)(d) as follows

“ Consumer” means any person who-

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains  such goods  for resale or for any commercial purpose: or

(ii) (heirs or avails of)  any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than person who  (heirs or avails of) the services  for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person (but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose):

 

1. It becomes clear from the above definition that the complainant must have purchased any goods for a consideration or to be promised  or partly paid to O.P. or she should  have hired  or availed  any service for consideration  which had been paid or promised  or partly paid or promised.

 

1. In the present case admittedly the complainant has not purchased any goods from the O.P. nor she  hired the service of the government.

 

1. The learned counsel has submitted that money has been paid to purchase the application from the O.P. and therefore the complainant is a consumer. This argument of the learned counsel cannot be accepted for the reasons that purchase of application does not clothe the relationship  of the consumer between the complainant and the O.P. The complainant has not been able to show that she comes within the definition as defined under the above Act. The complainant has produced  savings account pass book of Cauvery Grameena Bank, Challen for having paid cash on 01/07/2001. Another receipt for having paid cash on 30/07/2002, another receipt for having paid cash of Rs.120/- to the Cauvery Grameena Bank to she is a small farmer. These documents does not show that the complainant is a consumer within the definition of the Act. The District Consumer Forum gets jurisdiction to decide the case only when it is shown that the complainant is the consumer within the definition under section 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act.  In the present  case as stated earlier at the cost of repetition     the complainant not  established that she had hired service  of O.P. nor buyer of goods from O.P. In view of this it can be said that the documents produced by the complainant does not help her to establish that she is the consumer and therefore this Forum has inherent jurisdiction to decide the matter.  When once the complainant has not shown that she is the consumer, it can be said that the complaint as brought is not maintainable  and the complainant has to obtain remedy elsewhere and  not before this Forum.

 

1. POINT NO.2 & 3:-  In view of holding point No.1 in the negative point No.2 & 3 does not arise for consideration.

 

1. In view of the above following

 

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed as not maintainable before this Forum and the remedy of the complaint is elsewhere and  not before this Forum.