Date of Filing:  16.04.2013.                                                                             Date of Final Order: 24.04.2014.

The gist of the Petition of Complaint of Sri Dulal Ch. Chanda & 9 others Complainants dated 16-04-2013 is that they are small farmers and cultivates jute and they use to store their jute in the rural “Godown” for prevention of distress sale and thereafter to sell it to Opposite Parties according to their direction. Hence, they are the consumers of the opposite parties u/s 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The O.Ps promised to purchase jute under the instructions of the Govt. of India. The Regional Manager, JCI, Cooch Behar by a letter vide- Memo No. RO/COB/2012-2013 Dated 15-05-2012, intimated  Mr. Broja Gobinda Barman, the Owner of  “Bharatiya Gramin Bhander, Bhetaguri”, in respect of purchase and promising price of the jute, fixed from 16-09-2010  to  04-11-2010  at a price in between Rs.3,800/- & Rs.4,200/-per quintal.(Annexure ‘A’).

The aforesaid petitioners Sri Dulal Ch. Chanda and Nine Others kept/stored their product “jute” in the Godown of the proforma O.P.No.6. i.e. the “Bharatiya Gramin Bhander,” Bhetaguri,  against Godown Receipts in respect of 10 farmers, on dates, quantity of Jute, value of storing as below:

1.            Dulal Ch.Chanda               07-10-2010          2000 Kg.               Rs.84000=00      

2.            Balai Chakroborty            22-08-2010          2550 Kg.               Rs.84150=00

3.            Goutam Barman               21-08-2010          2350 Kg.               Rs.85187=00

4.            Dipak Roy Sarder              27-09-2010          2160 Kg.               Rs.84240=00

5.            Amal Barman                     19-08-2010          2600 Kg.               Rs.84420=00

6.            Ruma Barman                    20-09-2010          2370 Kg.               Rs.85320=00

7.            Bhobotosh Barman         18-08-2010          2610 Kg.               Rs.84172=00

8.            Namita Mandal                 07-10-2010          2040 Kg.               Rs.85680=00

9.            Manik Roy                          06-10-2010           2050 Kg.               Rs.86100=00

10.          Mohiruddin Miah            08-10-2010           2020 Kg.               Rs.84840=00

(Annexure ‘B’ Godown Receipt issued by the O.P.No.6)

Thereafter, the ten Petitioners above obtained Pledge Loan @ 60% of the value of jute stored based on the Godown Receipts, from the O.P.No.5 i.e. , “Uttarbanga Kshtriya Gramin Bank,” Bhetaguri Branch, with a view to sell it to the JCI at profitable price. (Annexure-‘C’ statement of pledge loan).

Subsequently, the petitioners went to sell their jute to the JCI who had denied to purchase  the same, although they used to purchase jute at their rate directly from farmers/market under direction of the Govt. of India accordingly, time to time at scheduled price, as it deals in jute business.

1. Thereafter, the Petitioners and Proforma O.P. No. 6 & 7 i.e. of Bharatiya Gramin Bhander, Bhetaguri, made several contacts with  the competent authority, due to not purchasing the said jute; but in vain.(Annexure ‘D’ letter of Proforma O.Ps No. 6 & 7).
2. On 10-08-2012 the O.P.No.3 i.e. the  Managing Director,  Jute Corporation of India Ltd., 15, Nellie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata Behar wrote a letter to the O.P.No.7 i.e. The Secretary,Bhetguri Krishi Gramin Mazdor Sangha, reflecting “There are Departmental Purchase Centre of the Corporation in Cooch Behar Region where the Corporation purchases from jute growers at the DPCs at MSP which is Rs.2,200/- per quintal. (TDS Ex-Assam).Therefore, the Corporation is not in a position to address the problem as stated by you in your referred letter. (Annexure ‘E’ letter).

In the above situation the O.P.No.5 did not take steps/did not even wrote a letter to the J.C.I. as to why the O.P.s No.1to4 denied/stopped to purchase the said jute @  in between Rs.3,800/- and Rs.4,200/-per quintal.

The said stored jute remained in the Godown of  of Bharatiya Gramin Bhander, Bhetaguri, P.O. Bhetaguri,  District- Cooch Behar, as well as the bank (O.P.No.5  Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank,  Bhetaguri Branch)which had been creating pressure for re-payment said loan upon the Petitioners. (Annexure ‘F’ letter).

Due to such denial to purchase the said stored jute, whimsical attitude & activities of the O.Ps the petitioners suffered mental pain, agony and unnecessary harassment together with deprivation of actual declared price of jute by the JCI Ltd.

The Complainants have prayed for direction to the O.Ps (1) to purchase jute,(stored jute) @ Of Rs.4,200/- per quintal or Refund Rs.8,48,109/- along with bank interest and godown rent, (2) to Pay Rs.5,00,000/- as Compensation for mental pain, agony and unnecessary harassment, (3) Rs.5,00,000/- for Violation of promise and deficiency in service, (4) Rs.50,000/-towards Litigation cost besides, relief(s) as entitled to as per law and equity as the Forum deem fit & proper.

The petition of complaint filed by Sri Dulal Ch. Chanda for self and 9 others on affidavit under their joint signatures u/s 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, having the same interest of self & on behalf of them and for the benefit of all the 10 consumers, so interested, enclosing Xerox copies of some documents marked Annexure ‘A’ to ‘F’. 5 Indian Postal Orders of Rs.100/- each i.e. total Rs.500/-were enclosed with the Petition.

Accordingly, DF Case No.23 of 2013 was registered on 16-04-2013 and after admission hearing Notice upon the Opposite Parties were issued fixing 13-05-2013 for S/R and appearance and also filing written version on affidavit.

On 13-05-2013 for the Opposite Parties No.1&2 Sri Pankaj Kumar Roy, DPC In-Charge of JCIL, Bhetaguri Branch and Sri Puspajit Roy,  Regional Manager, Jute Corporation of India, R. N. Road, (Regional Office),  P.S- Kotwali, P.O. & District- Cooch Behar entered appearance through their respective Ld. Advocates Mr. Bibek Kumar Datta & Mr. Himadri Sekhar Roy. The Opposite Parties No. 4 despite receipt of Notice had neither turned up nor took any step. For the Opposite Party No.5 Mr. Bhabatosh Das, Branch Manager, UBKG Bank, has entered appearance through his Ld. Advocate Mr. Pranab Karmakar. The Proforma Opposite Parties No.6 & 7 entered their appearance through their Ld Advocate Mr. Madan Mohan Ghosh and all the Ld. Advocates prayed for time to file their W/Vs. Accordingly, 30-05-2013 was fixed for appearance and filing W/Vs. On that date the aforesaid OPs No. 6 & 7 again prayed for time to file W/V. For the Opposite Parties 3 Mr. A. K. Chakraborty, Chairman cum Managing Director, JCIL, 15N, Nellie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-87, entered appearance through their respective Ld. Advocates Mr. Bibek Kumar Datta & Mr. Himadri Sekhar Roy. The Ld. Agents for the O.P No.1,2 & 3 have filed a petition praying further date for filing W/V. The O.P. No.5 filed his W/V today but the O.P. No. 4 in spite of allowing a further date they took no step. None appeared on call. Hence, the case of the said O.P case was taken up in Ex-Parte Hearing, fixing 06-06-2013 for filling W/Vs by others. On that date the Ld. Agents for the O.Ps No.1, 2, 3 have filed W/V but the O.P. No. 6, 7 prayed for time to file W/V and 10-06-2013 was fixed for filing W/V by them. On that date the OPs No.6 & 7 filed their Written Versions along with some Xerox copies of documents and hence 20-06-2013 was fixed for filing their evidence on affidavit by both side litigants. On that date all the parties prayed for time to file their evidence on affidavit and it was allowed fixing 05-07-13 for hearing argument of the parties with liberty to file their evidence on affidavit and written arguments before 2 days of the date fixed for argument. On that date the O.Ps No. 6 & 7 filed their respective Evidence on affidavits. The Complainant and the O.Ps No.1, 2, 3 did not file evidence, despite opportunities given and the Agent for the O.P No. 1,2,3 not even filed any time petition. The O.P No.5 however filed a time petition for filing his Evidence which was allowed fixing 23-07-2013 for hearing argument with liberty to file written arguments in the meantime and also to file evidence on affidavit by the OP No.5 and O.P Nos.1, 2, 3, if any.  On that date the Complainant and the OPs No.1, 2, & 3 filed their Evidence on affidavit. The Op No.5 filed a petition for time to file Evidence and Written Argument. The O.Ps No. 1, 2 & 3 prayed for time for argument & 13-08-2013 was fixed for argument and filing Evidence by the OP No.5. On that date OP No.1 to 3 were absent without any step. The O.P.No.5 filed his Evidence on affidavit and due to diary being congested 09-09-2013 was fixed for filing Written Argument, if any but on that date due to death of a Ld. Advocate 27-09-2013 was fixed for argument but due to lack of quorum and due to Puja Vacation a long date i.e. 07-11-2013 was fixed for hearing argument.

On that date the OP No.5 filed his Written Argument; and due to again lack of quorum 22-11-2013 was fixed for argument. Again argument could not be heard on that date as both the Ld. President and the Male member were in training at Salt Lake. Accordingly 12-12-2013 was fixed for argument and on that date the complaint filed his written argument. The O.Ps No.1 to 3 prayed for time to argue. Argument heard in part as put forwarded by the Ld. Advocates present. The Opposite Parties No.1, 2 & 3 prayed for time to argue and in view of voluminous documents 02-01-2014 was fixed for further argument; but Ld. Advocates took time to argue for not having the required papers readily with them. Accordingly, 27-01-2014 was fixed for argument. On that date the OP No.7 remained absent. However, argument was heard in full and 13-02-2014 was fixed for delivery of Final Order; but it could not get ready by typing and it was deferred to 24-02 -2014; but even then it could not be complied with and adjourned to 14-03-2014 again it was further deferred to 27-03-2014 but some discrepancies came to light in the copies of documents filed and the Ld. Advocate contended to file original documents in 2^nd half. Those were filed in a bunch and marked Exhibits. After scrutiny of documents there appears lack of document though those has been put in the list as serial. However after scrutiny a long date i.e. today (24-04-2014) has been fixed for delivery of Final Order.

On scrutiny of the written version of the O.P. No.5 dated 30-05-2013 it appears that he has denied all the allegations in the complaint save and except which are on record on the point of limitation mis-joinder of necessary party etc. It has been stated that based on the valuation of the jute stored 60% loan was given to the farmers who are liable to repay the loan with interest. It has been alleged that the farmers to avoid repayment of loan has filed the instant case intentionally on baseless ground and fake/false contention. The O.P. No.5 has no deficiency in service and is not liable for payment of any compensation. Hence the case is not maintainable and it should be dismissed with exemplary cost as he has been falsely implicated.

For the O.P. No.1 to 3 the Regional Manager (I/C) of the JCIL, Cooch Behar region in his written version stated that the Complainants had/have no relation/connection with this three O.Ps. as there was no occasion to render any service and/or contract/business relation with them. They are not “Consumer” and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint which is barred by limitation, estoppels, waiver and acquiescence and bad for non-joinder/mis-joinder etc. in terms of the Consumer protection Act, 1986. It has been assailed that the Proforma defendant No.6 i.e. Braja Gobinda Barman (Assistant Teacher) is the kingpin in initiating the present proceeding. The statement in the complaint that “thereafter, they state it to the O.Ps in accordance with the direction and promised by the O.Ps” are distorted and emphatically denied. The Regional Manager has never promised or gave any assurance of purchase of jute to the Complainants as alleged. The O.Ps. through its different Departmental Purchase Centre (DPC) purchased or procured raw-jute at the prevailing market rate to safeguard the interest of the farmers and that to with the guidelines of the Jute Corporation of India (JCI) and they have their D.P.C. at Bhentaguri which is well known to the Complainant and through that centre huge quantity of jute are being purchased in every year and in the season 2010-11 huge quantity of jute were purchased from the concerned jute farmers of the locality and the surrounding nearby village. The O.Ps. have denied that “the petitioners want to sell their stored jute concerned to the O.Ps on 02-11-2010 and the O.Ps denied to purchase the said jute with Rs.3,800/- and with Rs.4,200/-“. The petitioners never want to sell their product to the O.Ps nor the O.Ps denied the same as alleged. The Seceretary, Bhentaguri Krishi Gramin Majdur Sangha wrote a letter to the Jute Commissioner, the copy of which was forwarded to the Regional Manager, JCI vide letter dated 14-06-2012 wherein he specifically asserted that the price of the jute has fallen and urged/requested to purchase their stored jute with the rate of Rs.4,200/- per quintal as existed on 04-11-2010. The Company Secretary cum General Manager of JCI, Kolkata duly intimated about the Minimum Support Price (MSP) by which JCI purchase the jute through their DPCs which was the Govt. declared rate for the season 2012-13. These answering O.Ps have/had no nexus with the business transaction held in between the Complainant with that of O.P. No.6. It has further been alleged that the Complainants have filed the case to avoid repayment of bank loan. There is no cause of action and there are not entitled to get any compensation what so ever. Over the self-same allegation, three other cases have been engineered being DF Case No.23/2013, 24/2013 and 25/2013 and it is none else but that O.P. No.6 who managed to mislead the Complainant in lodging such case.

The Proforma O.P. No.6 i.e. Mr. Braja Gobinda Barman owner of “Bharatiya Gramin Bhandar” in his written version dated 10-06-2013 stated that his rural godown is aided by NABARD and finance by Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Bhetaguri Branch. He has vouched for the Complainants almost on every point and additionally supported and admitted the factum as stated in the petition of complaint. He has stated that the Complainants stored 24.395MT jute in his godown immediately after harvest and received godown receipts by which they availed pledge loan from the bank as per scheme. He has mentioned about so many correspondence with different authorities of bank JCI Govt. and other administrative authorities on various dates at different places of West Bengal. Besides, he has made correspondence with the Hon’ble Ministers of West Bengal and the Ministers of Govt. of India. He has left no stored unturned. He has annexed so many letters, statements of which the vital letters and replies are (1) Proforma O.P. No.6 received a letter from the Jute Commissioner’s Office vide Memo No. Jute (T)-6/1/53/2005-II, dated 9^th July, 2012 in which the Jute Commissioner requested the Managing Director, JCI to examine the case and take necessary action. (2) The B.M., Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Bhetaguri Branch admitted the rate of jute (Tossa) of Rs.4,200/- per quintal and on the basis of this rate the Branch Manager, U.B.K.G.B., Bhetaguri Branch sanctioned 60% pledge loan to the petitioners as maximum even after 02-11-2010. (3) The JCI admitted the rate of jute (Tossa) of Rs.4,200/- per quintal up to 04-11-2010 vide Memo No. JCI/RO/COB/MKT/2012-13 dated 15-05-2013. (4) The market price of jute of Rs.4,200/- per quintal was existed up to the first week of November, 2010 according to the report of the Assistant Agricultural Marketing Officer, Dinhata, Dist.- Cooch Behar.

He has alleged that inspite of intimation the O.P. No.5 i.e. the Branch manager, Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank, bhetaguri branch has not taken any step even when the price of jute was decreasing to get it sold. He has filed some aspects of mission, vision, objectives and services of JCI reflecting that implementation of the policy of the Govt. of India for providing minimum support price (MSP) to the jute growers of the country they are to support for the success of its commercial operation. Memo No.417 dated 27-06-2012 as to Report of Deputy Director of agricultural Marketing (Administrative) northern range Jalpaiguri speaks of distress of petitioners who also had visited Bharatiya Gramin Bhandar and U.B.K.G.B. on 22-06-2012. He has also produced certified copies of 12 pages as per RTI Act, 2005. He collected survey report on remunerative price from the farmers at that time. In fine he has banked upon the stopped purchase by JCI with Rs.4,200/- (DPC) per quintal after 04-11-2010. He has emphasized on the policy and objectives of the pledge loan.

On scrutiny of evidence of the 10 Complainants on affidavit dated 03-07-2013 speaks almost replica of the petition of complaint. Only the added point is that the farmers cultivated jute (Tossa). It has been stated that subsequently, on 10-08-2012 the O.P. No.3, sent a letter to the Proforma O.P. No.7, which reveals that “there are Departmental Purchase centre of the corporation in Cooch Behar Region where the corporation purchases from jute growers at the DPCs at MSP which is Rs.2,200/- per quintal. (TD5 Ex-Assam). Therefore, the corporation is not in a position to address the problem as stated by you in your referred letter”.

The evidence of Proforma O.P. No.6 is also almost carbon copy of his written version save and except the statement that he received letter from the Jute Commissioner’s Office vide Memo No. Jute (T)-6/1/53/2005-II, dated 9^th July, 2012 in which the Jute Commissioner requested the Managing Director, JCI to examine the case and take necessary action. In this letter the jute commissioner did not deny to purchase the jute.

The evidence of Proforma O.P. No.7 is alike his written version but in different format, supporting the evidence of the Proforma O.P. No.6 and stated in favour of the Complainants emphasizing on the rate of in between Rs.3,800/- and Rs.4,200/-. He also stated about the letter received by him from the O.P. No.3 under Memo No. JCI/MK TG-Jute/2012-13/335 dated 10-08-2012.

The written argument for the Complainants is supporting to the complaints but in its contents at some paragraph has been explored in various ways i.e. the O.P. No.5 i.e. Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Bhetaguri Branch, that it did not render proper service towards the petitioners/Complainants though they have power to sell the stored jute as per circular No.C/55/31/822/CMRD-I of the bank i.e. O.P. No.5. The Corporation’s objectives are to maintain a constant dialogue with jute growers, State Govt. of the jute growing States, Apex Co-operative acting as their agent, Consumers, Industries, financial institutions and our employees while farming polices & programs on raw Jute Procurement. Procurement of raw jute directly from the growers either through their own purchase centers or through co-operatives at the minimum support prices fixed by Govt. of India from time to time. Providing market information as a decision support system to the jute growers. To buy whatever quantity offered for sale at minimum support prices and ensures that market prices do not fall below the minimum support price declared by the Govt. of India from time to time.

Jute Technology Mission (Mini Mission-III) Market Linkage of Raw Jute

To assist jute growers by appropriate market support to enable them to get market price. But it is a matter of great regret and depressing to the poor cultivators/jute growers that, the JCIL have neither followed his vision and mission nor care to maintain his object and service. Petitioners after knowing the fact of their produce (jute) became very depressed and trying to destroy themselves to get relief from the burden of bank loan, burden of godown rent, burden of other credit in the market. That finding no other alternative, the petitioners/Complainants at last have come before the Ld. Forum, to save them from such unbearable and odd situation. It has further been asserted that the written objection filed by the O.P. No.1 to 3, and O.P. No.5, speaks that they have always tried to hide the actual facts. It has been further stated that the JCIL is the safeguard of rate of jute of the farmers but the JCIL unethically stopped purchasing after 04-11-2010 without any information to the Complainants and to the bank i.e. O.P. No.5, and failed to “maintain a constant dialogue with jute growers, State Govt. of the jute growing States, Apex Co-operative acting as our agent, Consumers, Industries, financial institutions and their employees while farming polices & programmes on raw jute procurement”. No sooner had the JCIL stopped purchasing jute with the rate of Rs.3,800/- to Rs.4,200/- per quintal after 04-11-2010 than the market price started falling. (Report collected from the Assistant Agricultural Marketing Officer, Dinhata, Dist.- Cooch Behar, marked as G/9. The O.Ps did not make arrangement to purchase the stored jute from the Complainants and as such their deficiency in services.

Written Argument submitted by the O.P. No.5 speaks that the O.P. No.5 is the Branch Manager of U.B.K.G.B., Bhetaguri Branch and it is an established financial Banking Organization and has been running its business in the different areas of the district. The bank sanctioned 60% loan @50,000/- each to the petitioners on the basis of their stored quantity of jute, under certain terms and conditions. They entered into an agreement with the bank. As per terms and conditions the petitioners miserably failed to re-pay the loan amounts. As such they became defaulter in repayment of their loan extended by the bank. In number of times letters had been sent to the petitioners with a request to re-pay their respective loans; but neither the petitioners repaid the loan amount nor paid the interest accrued upon the loan. The false allegations brought by the petitioners against the bank with an ulterior motive just to make delay and thereby to avoid the re-payment of loan, given by the bank.  Based on the valuation of the stored jute 60% loan was granted by the bank and such petitioners are liable to re-pay the loan with interest to the bank. It is bounded duty & liability of the petitioners to re-pay the loan amount; but they always avoided the re-payment of loan and illegally by making false and baseless statements instituted this instant case implicating the bank with a view just to avoid and cause delay in the re-payment of bank loan. The petitioners miserably failed to establish their case as such they are not entitled for any relief as claimed by them. The petitioners did not approach the Ld. Forum with clean hand as such they are not entitled for the reliefs as prayed for and as such the instant case should be dismissed with cost in the interest of natural justice and fair play. He has prayed for dismiss the case with sufficient cost and specifically assailing adverse against the O.P. No.6 holding that he is behind the filing of the false cases in connivance with the Complainants.

            The O.P.No.6 filed a Circular of the Bank mentioning DF Case Nos. 21/2013, 23/2013, 24/2013, 25/2013. Gist of which speaks as follows:

Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Circular No. C/55/31/822/CMRD-1 dated 03-05-2007 speaks in gist that the scheme is meant for the cultivators who are forced to sell their agricultural products at a very low rate just after harvesting of crops. This scheme intends to help the helpless farmers especially who take crop loans from their bank.

Quantum of loan: 60% of market value or a minimum support price declared by Govt. whichever is lower may be the quantum of loan subject to maximum Rs.50,000/- per borrower.

Security: Loan will be secured by hypothecation of produce through pledge of Ware House/Godown/Cold Storage Receipts.

Periodicity of loan: The loan facility under the scheme is for a period not exceeding six months.

The outstanding amount in Agriculture Cash Credit a/c or in KCC a/c for that crop in the name of the borrower would be fully recovered by debiting the DL (Ag) loan a/c (b). The excess amount after recovery of earlier loan by the amount of this loan as noted in (b), to be disbursed to the borrower and shortfall, if any, is to be recovered from the borrower.

Inspection and storage: (i) Bank will have the right to inspect the Ware House/Godowns/Cold storage at any time for which branches identify/negotiate with Ware House/Cold Storages/Godowns for a tie up, (ii) The Ware House/Godown/Cold Storage Authority not to deliver goods without authorization from the bank, (iii) Delivery of goods will be made to the borrowers against corresponding payment of loan amount.

Insurance: Ware-House/Godown/Cold Storage owner must have insurance policies for insurance of stocks/goods. Branch has to obtain a confirmation from them.

Interest rate: Rate of interest will be 12% p.a.

Bank will have the right to take possession and sell of goods for recovery of loan at any point of time depending on (i) position of loan account, (ii) falling market price and/or (iii) deterioration in the quality of stored goods. Branch Manager should closely monitor such advances including inspection of pledged/hypothecated goods and periodical contacts with the Ware House/Godown/Cold Storage authorities so that timely actions can be taken by them for recovery of bank’s advances under the scheme. Branch Managers are instructed to popularize the scheme for increasing bank’s lending in agricultural sector taking all safety measures.

Now, It is pertinent to give a brief of the written arguments put forwarded by the parties in support of their respective cases discussed herein before.

Now, it is also pertinent to mention that the 10 Complainants in the instant case could not file any original documents in support of their complaint, reason best known to them. The O.Ps also refrained from producing any document in original, to adduce in evidence but they had filed Xerox copies as annexure marked/unmarked and assailed mentioning those papers/documents. In their cases also reason best known to them.

Whereas, the O.P. No.6 owner of “Bharatiya Gramin Bhandar” has produced some original/carbon/authenticated Xerox copies of voluminous documents, under a List of Documents together in DF Case Nos. 21/2013, 23/2013, 24/2013 & 25/2013, containing serial No.1 to 29 which have been marked Exhibits: Besides, some other documents also have later been submitted by the Ld. Advocate for the complainants in respect of the matters entrusting the O.P.no.6 to take all required steps for their benefit on behalf of them and also the papers relating to the proposed release of the jute from the godown of the O.P.no.6.We have gone through the same.

From the aforesaid materials, exhibits on record, the petition of complaint, written versions of the Opposite Parties including the Proforma Opposite Parties, evidence adduced by the respective parties, written as well as oral arguments, fact & circumstances put forward by the respective parties, in our considered view the following Issues/Points came to light for consideration and decision thereof, together with taking the objectives of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Rules & Regulations there under and the Reported Decisions of the State Commissions, the National Commission besides; the Reported Judgments  of the Hon’ble High Courts and the Apex Court. 

                                                Issues/Points for Consideration.

1. Whether the Complainants are the “Consumers” of the Opposite Parties? If so of   who’s consumers?

2.  Whether the Petition of complaint contains consumer disputes? If so, which are the Disputes and what for?

3. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

4. Whether the case lacks in estoppels, non-joinder/miss-joinder of any necessary party?

5.  Whether the Opposite Parties, cited in the complaint, rendered deficiency in service by their acts/ omissions/ negligence /violation of various     Acts/ Rules/ Regulations/ Provisions etc? If so, who are liable for such matters & to what extent?

6. Whether the complainants proved their case in respect to the alleged disputes beyond reasonable doubt?

7. Whether the Proforma Opposite Parties No.6 & 7 are factually/actually Opposite Parties? If so who’s Opposite Parties?

8. Whether the Opposite Parties exclusively and/or jointly/severally with the Proforma Opposite Parties are liable to pay compensation to the complainants, if any? If so, who are to pay the same and to what extent and how?

9. Whether the complainants are entitled to get relief(s) as prayed for? If so,  how & to what extent and under what condition/conditions?

DECISION   WITH  REASON.

Point No. 1. Whether the Complainants are the “Consumers” of the Opposite Parties. If so of who’s consumers?

            From the discussions herein before, though the opposite parties in various ways have assailed that the complainants are not directly “consumers” to all the opposite parties; but we find that they are invariably consumers of the opposite parties No.1, 5 & 6 according to the section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and hence, this point is decided in favour of the complainants.

Point No. 2.  Whether the Petition of Complaint contains consumer disputes?  If so, which are the Disputes and what for?

            The petition of complaint contains so many disputes but from the materials on record we find that the prime disputes are that in spite of having the provisions and in terms & conditions of the pledge loan the opposite parties No. 1,2&3despite their approach denied to purchase their jute stored at the godown of the opposite party No.6  and the bank i.e. opposite party No.5 which has sanctioned the loan has not taken any initiative to sell the jute either to the JCIL or in the open market at that existing higher price of jute at the relevant period. The Godown-keeper also has not taken proper initiative to sell the jute. On the other hand he has given reminder to them to get the stored jute released by paying the godown rent as the godown remained blocked for since long, due to storing of the jute and no new goods could be stored there. Besides, the jute is also being damaged due to storing for a long time. Thereafter, the price of jute decreased and since August-October, 2010 till date those jutes are lying in the godown of the opposite party No.6 for which the quality & quantity of the jute are reasonably deteriorating day by day, by nature. On the contrary, the opposite party No.5 Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank by issuing Notice is demanding the loan with interest. Both the bank interest and the godown rent are increasing due to elapse of time. They are, thus being deprived of their dues, due to the tag-of-war/rather moving as shuttle cock, by shifting their responsibility/liability to the shoulder of one another, resulting to which they have been suffering at the behest of negligence of the opposite parties, for no fault of their own, and passing their days in agony being poor small farmers cannot be altogether denied.  

Point No. 3.  Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

            It has not been denied and/or disputed that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint case; but opposite party No.1 to 3 & 5 disputed on the point that the O.P No.6 is not a “consumer” of them rather he is the king pin of all the instant four DF cases before this Forum got filed, in connivance with the complainant/farmers, to evade the re-payment of the loan by drawing attention of the Forum based on the Mission/Vision/Policy etc. of the Government of West Bengal and the Central Government, by filing various download papers, letters of different Organizations and in this aspect the Opposite Party No.6 is the pioneer & king pin who has not only procured the internal papers of various departments by letters and also by application of the RTI Act,2005 but also assailed in this case. We find no impediment in this aspect. We find that this Forum has got territorial jurisdiction, as well as cause of action, because some of the opposite parties have got their office/business/practical transactions took place within this District-Cooch Behar and those are on record. For the activities/role of the O.P.No.6 the jurisdiction of this Forum cannot wither away. On the other hand the case value (at valorem) stood at Rs.18,98,809/- i.e. within Rs.20,00,000/-. So, we have no hesitation to come to a decision that this forum has got both territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the case.  

Point No. 4.  Whether the case lacks in estoppels, non-joinder/miss-joinder  of any necessary party?

This forum is of the view that the case is not lacking in respective of estoppels as there is no order from any other court /Forum to stop the proceeding and /or any case appears to have been lying elsewhere and the necessary party, as to the necessary parties, in question in this proceeding and non-joinder/miss-joinder of any necessary party we find that the complainants have cited the parties based on the documents even if all of the Opposite Parties may not be held always liable.

Point No. 5.  Whether the Opposite Parties, cited in the complaint, rendered deficiency in service by their acts/omissions/negligence/violation of various Acts, Rules, Regulations, Provisions etc. If so, who are liable for such matters & to what extent?

The Opposite Parties cited in the complaint, rendered deficiency in service by their acts/omissions/negligence/violated various Acts/Rules/Regulations/Provisions etc. From the discussions herein before all of them are involved in such acts/omissions; but all are not liable for cognizable deficiency on the ground that the OP No.2, 3 & 4 (ex-parte) are the supervising authorities and are not directly implementing authority of the Vision/Mission etc. but to cause the same implemented and for which the Regional Manager and others have issued directions/guidelines to the Departmental Purchase Centers. And their involvement does not constitute liability as to compensate as such. Naturally, the complainants/farmers and/or the Proforma OP Nos.6 & 7 have tried to get  benefit for themselves (not being consumers in true sense of law); but for the farmers whom they have backed from behind from the very initial stage and it is transparent from  the record that the Proforma O.P No. 6 being an Assistant Teacher of High School have been running the godown in association with NABARD and other Associations besides, the JCIL and the bank in granting the bank loans as per various welfare legislation of the Govt. for the poor farmers as well for themselves. From the conduct of the Proforma  O. P. Nos. 6 & 7 it appears that the O.P No.7 perhaps acted to assist the O.P. No. 6 as the Secretary of the Vetaguri  Krishi  Gramin  Mazdoor  Sangha and wrote letters, as it appears from the record. Hence, considering all aspects fact, circumstance, nature of the case, role played by the concerned parties, we find that it will be just and proper if the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 5 are held liable jointly/severally. On the other hand, the complainants are also liable to the extent for not taking  proper & adequate steps in respect of payment of loan & selling of the stored jute in time for which they became defaulter to the bank and  by filling the case before the Forum, treating the same as Lottery Centre or Jackpot they cannot be  allowed to avail the benefits and/or indulged in respect of claim of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation, Rs.5,00,000/- for so called breaking promise & deficiency of service besides Rs.50,000/- cost of proceedings against original claim of Rs.8,48,109/- and presumably that amount also was presumably estimated value of the stored jute in the godown and not the assessed value). The provisions, under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , The Consumer Protection Rules,1987, West Bengal Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 and the Consumer Protection Regulations,2005 are obviously consumer friendly; but that does not mean that at the behest of their own wrong by not re-paying the pledge loan and even  without re-paying  a single rupee to avail the benefits of the Consumer Protection Act in  the name of “Consumer”. Hence they are also more or less liable for such negligence arose out of omission to act/respond in cooperation with the Opposite Party No.1 & 5 with their shortest reach. In this aspect we find that at a glance the O.P.No.6 i.e. the Godown Owner Mr. Broja Gobinda Barman is apparently liable for compensation to the complainants as their goods were stored with him but factually and actually he does not appear to be liable on the grounds that he, as per the other OPs acted as a king pin behind the 4 cases being duly authorized by the complainants to take all measures to save them from the crisis when the bank and the JCIL reluctantly dealt with them, he came forward in rescue of the complainants.

Thus, we are of considered view that the complainants are liable to repay the pledge loan amount together with interest in terms with loan agreements to the OP No. 5 bank and the opposite party No. 5 in close liaison with O.P. No.6, under supervision of O.P No.1 are to dispose of the stored jute of the concerned complainants/farmers, in presence of the complainant No.1 and /or her representative by auction/tender sale at the earliest possible opportunity of higher price of jute, after observing all the formalities; so that none of the parties endure unnecessary and excessive sufferings. The sale proceed should be properly & proportionately  accounted for and the bank loan with interest/ godown rent can be relinquished to the maximum extent and rest amounts if any becomes due, are paid up in accordance with the proposition herein above, contended. So that none can avail undue benefit in terms of the final order.   

Point No. 6.  Whether the complainants proved their case in respect to the alleged disputes beyond reasonable doubt?

From the discussion herein before, at length and the materials on record we are of the considered view that the complainants, though could prove their case but not prove it  beyond all reasonable doubts and rather it is the opposite parties who have proved the case, presumably the Proforma Opposite Party No.6 who has proved case beyond reasonable doubt, in disguise, as Proforma Opposite Party ;wherein the other opposite parties also, by their written versions , evidence and arguments, in fact have proved the case. It is pertinent to mention that both the complainants and opposite parties were inclined to emphasize on the prevailing price rate of Jute per Quintal at the relevant period of Rabi Season 2010-2011 and the complainants besides opposite party No. 6 have banked upon the price rate of jute fixed by the concerned authority whereas the figure as to price rate of jute as to Assam of the same nature jute was around 50% of jute of West Bengal. None produced/adduced any evidence specifically as to the price rate of jute of Rabi season 2010-2011on it being harvested. Hence, we may put much reliance on the godown receipts vide Exhibits-2,2/1 to 2/37, wherein the market rate has been estimated and based on which the godown receipts were issued and further based on which value the bank had sanctioned the pledge loan to the farmers/complainants.

Point No. 7.  Whether the Proforma Opposite Parties No.6 & 7 are factually/actually Opposite Parties? If so who’s Opposite Parties?

From the discussion herein above it is though needless; but to decide as the opposite parties vehemently put aspersion against the O.P no 6 as the king pin and root of originating four cases before this Forum in connivance, against the O.P.No. 1 i.e. JCIL, O.P.No.5 i.e. the bank, to avoid the re-payment of pledge loan and illegally gain at the behest of the opposite parties by squeezing, in connivance with opposite party no.6 and we decide that the O.P.No.6 is factually and actually not liable to pay any compensation to the complainants. We also have reason to believe that it is the O.P.No.6 who en-routed the entire episode, right from the harvesting season to till date, either as a social worker to stand by the side of the poor farmers for their benefit and/ or benefit  of self i.e.O.P.No.6,  by setting up the godown for storing agricultural products therein. The prime consideration is: it is not the person who did it; but it is the prime consideration as to what was done. If it is legally done, pioneering should not be over-emphasized. Simultaneously, the O.P. Nos.1 & 5, at the grass root level are the concerned Officers to implement the policy of the Govt. according to Act, Laws, Regulations, Circular, Directives, to achieve the goal and for which employees  are paid for. From the materials on record the poor farmers were not in a position to bell the cat and it has been done by the O.P No.6; than what’s wrong? The record shows that the O.P.No.6 is entitled to get the Rent of the godown for keeping the jute at his godown and nothing else. On the other hand the O.P.No.5 is the beneficiary in respect of providing pledge loan against the jute stored in the said godown by getting interest on such loans. The O.P. No.1 i.e. The Departmental Purchase Center In-Charge (D.P.C), Jute Corporation of India Limited, Bhetaguri,  P.O. Bhetaguri,  District- Cooch Behar, as it appears from the available documents fact & circumstances, we find that they should have taken initiative to implement the Policy of the JCIL as well as of the Government of West Bengal & the Central Govt. under which the JCIL functions in respect of procurement of jute form the farmers.

From the letter of 26 persons of which some of the complainants are the signatories in the said joint petition dated 25-07-2011 reflects that in 2010 they stored their goods (jute) in the godown of Proforma O.P. No.6 and being the price of those jute lesser they could not sold it. They have written a letter on that date addressed to the Hon’ble Minister of Agriculture through the O.P. No.6. Not only that they have also entrusted the O.P. No.6 to take all necessary steps in future. The Proforma O.P. No.6 also in the bunch of documents has tagged the carbon copy of the godown receipts in a Receipt Book (Receipt No.0032050), statement of place finance of godown receipt various letters, statements including carbon copy of letters dated 14-06-2012 and 21-06-2012 addressed to the JCI Ltd., order of Asstt. Director (J.M.) dated 09-07-2012 to the Chairman cum M.D., JCI Ltd. dated 09-07-2012, besides the letter of Company Secretary cum G.M. addressed to Secretary, Bhetaguri Krishi Gramin Mazdur Sangha dated 10-08-2012 and what not. Those documents mentioned in the list of Exhibits mostly relates to beneficiary efforts for the farmers/complainants in this case and in other cases. He has also left no stone unturned and issued reminders to the farmers/complainants who stored their jute in his godown, for payment of arrear godown rents.

Accordingly, we may treat the Proforma Opposite Party No.6 as the guide and philosopher of the complainants and both actually and factually stood by the side of the complainants. The Proforma O.P.No.7 is none; but the leader of the Krishi Gramin Mazdoor Sangha and perhaps acted as per guidance of the Proforma O.P.No.6.He should be dismissed from this case.

Point No. 8.  Whether the Opposite Parties and/or jointly/severally with the Proforma Opposite Parties are liable to pay compensation to the complainants, if any. If so, who are to pay the same and to what extent and how?

            In this respect we find that the Opposite Party No. 1& 5 are liable for compensation and to pay the complainants jointly and /or severally to the extent of the amount as per Godown  Receipt, the value of  the jute of the relevant period with reasonable interest w. e. f. the date of storing of jute in the godown.  Simultaneously, the complainants are also liable to re-pay the pledge loan with interest to the O.P.No.5 and also to pay the due Rents of the Godown to the O.P.No.6.

Point No. 9.  Whether the complainants are entitled to get relief(s) as prayed for?  If so, how & to what extent and under what condition/conditions?

The complainants are not entitled to get  relief(s) as prayed for; but are entitled to  get reasonable litigation cost/compensation etc. for their mental pain, agony and unnecessary harassment besides, refund of Rs.8,48,109/- with interest at reasonable rate, as if, the value of jute was in saving account.  If so, it is to be compensated after sale of the stored jute in the godown as discussed above and as per the aforesaid observation subject to re-payment of adjustment of the amount accruable from the sale proceed of the stored jute which shall be accrued as per observation made here in before. No compensation in respect of so called breaking promise as there appeared no iota of evidence in this aspect save an except the negligence and or omission to act properly and adequately in conformity to the provisions and delaying the matter without cogent and sufficient ground.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that

              The complaint case be and the same succeeds in part with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-each, Rs.10,000/- each towards compensation for deficiency in service, Rs.5,000/-each for harassment, mental pain and agony of the complainants and  entitled to get respective capital amount Rs.8,48,109/-with 12% w.e.f. date of storing the jute in the godown, based on godown Receipts proportionately and in parity with the godown receipts, treating the same as investment. The O.P.No.1 & 5 are directed to pay the ordered amounts to the individual 10 complainants severally and/or jointly to i.e. Complainant No.(1)  Dulal Ch. Chanda for self, Complainants No.(2) Balai Chakroborty, (3) Goutam Barman,(4) Dipak Roy Sardar, (5) Amal Barman,(6) Ruma Barman, (7) Bhabotosh Barman (8) Namita Mandal (9) Manik Roy,(10) Mohiruddin Miah  within a period of 60 days from the date of order, failure of which the OPs. Shall pay @ Rs.40/- for each day’s delay i.e. w. e. f. the date of expiry of the aforesaid period of 60 days, by depositing the amount, if any accrued for such delay. The entire payments shall be made jointly and/or severally within the aforesaid period.

Simultaneously, the aforesaid ten Complainants are directed to re-pay the pledge loan in terms of the Loan Agreement forthwith and up to date, on completion of the  auction sale of the entire concerned stored jute and adjustment of the accounts by negotiation and finalization of the dues and in this regard the Complainants shall co-operate the Opposite Parties accordingly.

At the event of failure to comply with the order the Opposite Parties No.1 & 5 as well as the ten Complainants shall jointly and/or severally shall pay cost @ Rs.20/-each and Rs.20/-each respectively for each day’s delay, if caused, by either of the parties jointly and/or severally on expiry of the aforesaid 60 days by depositing the accrued amount if any by depositing in the State Consumer Welfare Fund, West Bengal.

Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates concerned by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, for information & necessary action.

Dictated and corrected by me.

                    President                                                                                    President

   District Consumer Disputes                                                         District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar                                                  Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar

                    Member                                                                                             Member

   District Consumer Disputes                                                         District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar                                                  Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar