BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION CT, 1986) MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY
Present : Sri Mekala Narsimha Reddy, M.A., LL.B.,
P.G.D.C.P.L., President (FAC).
Smt Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Lady Member
Friday, the 27th day of August 2010
C.C. No. 75 of 2009
Between:
Smt. Qamar Sultana @ Qamar
W/o Mohd. Mahboob Ali,
Aged: 48 years, Occ: Agriculture & Household ,
R/o Hadnoor, Mandal Nyalkal, Dist Medak. ……Complainant
And
The General Manager,
Trident Sugars Ltd.,
Madhunagar, Zaheerabad, Dist. Medak. ……Opposite party
This complaint coming up for final hearing before us on 03-8-2010 in the presence of Sri K. Jaipal Reddy, Advocate for complainant and Sri.Ashok Patil, Advocate for opposite party, upon hearing arguments of both sides, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
(Per Smt Meena Ramanathan, Lady Member)
This complaint is filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to directing the opposite party to pay the damages of the sugar cane at Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant, Award Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and suffering, and costs of the proceedings may be awarded.
1. The complainant alleging that he is owner and possessor of land bearing Sy. No. 60 measuring Ac.3-00 situate at Hadnoor village. She used to raise sugarcane crop in said land. She stated to have entered into an agreement with opposite party for supply of sugarcane for the crushing season 2007-2008 through Ryot No. 217038 dated 26.09.2007. The opposite party stated to have not issued the permit on time as per agreement to complainant and therby she did not supply the sugarcane and lastly on 12.05.2008 a fire accident took place in the land and standing sugarcane crop was completely burnt. Thereafter the opposite party had taken some of the burnt sugarcane in the account of her husband and the remaining damaged crop was removed from the filed. On the instructions of Tahsildar, Nyalkal, the Mandal Revenue Inspector conducted panchanama and assessed the loss to a tune of Rs. 1.50,000/-. Had the opposite party issued permit on time, compalinant could have supplied the sugarcane and got the money. At last, the opposite party issued permit in May 2008, by which time the crop was burnt due to fire accident, hence she sustained heavy loss. She states that she visited the opposite party several times with a request to issue permit for supply of sugarcane but the opposite party did not respond.
It is further alleged that she was issued notice to the opposite party on 20.10.2008 which the opposite party received on 21.10.2008 and issued a false reply n order to escape from their liability. Upon which, she again issued a reply to the notice on 08.12.2008 which the opposite party received on 10.12.2008 but gave no response. Had the opposite party issued permits earlier, the complainant could have supplied he sugarcane. The acts of the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence liable to pay exemplary damages, compensation and costs. Accordingly prays to award damages of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards damage of crop; to pay Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering as compensation; to pay costs of the proceeding and also award any other relief or reliefs.
2. The opposite party filed their counter with the following averments:
Opposite party filed their counter stating that the complainant is not maintainable as she is not a consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(b) of the Act and as such this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and liable to be dismissed on the point of jurisdiction. The opposite party admitted the possessing of land by complainant and entering into agreement by complainant with it for supply of sugarcane raised in the land during the crushing season 2007-2008 but denied the allegation that they have not issued the permit (cutting order) in time and thereby the fire accident took place. In fact, the opposite party said to have issued permit to complainant for harvesting of sugarcane on 08.05.2008 itself, but the complainant failed to supply to opposite party factory and illegally diverted the sugarcane to some other factory in violation of the agreement. In fact, the fire accident took place in the field of complainant’s husband on12.05.2008 in the same survey number but not in complainant’s field. The burnt canewas supplied byMohd. Mahboob Ali to the factory from 15.05.2008 to 23.05.2008. There is no necesity to the oppoiste arty to draw the cane of a particular cane grower in other’s name or account. The oppoiste party denied the allegation of taking of part of burnt sugarcane in the account of complainant’s husband and removal of remaining crop from the field. It also denied conducting of panchanama by MRI Nyalkal and assessing of loss to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- since there was no fire accident at all. No notice was given to the oppoiste party before conducting the alleged panchanama. Even otherwise, if any fire accident has occurred in the field of Mahboob Ali, “it is an Act of God” which s due to natural cause or accidental for which the opposite party is not responsible. In fact the complainant failed to supply the sugarcane to the opposite party factory and diverted to some other factory. Exchange of notices and reply between the parties is admitted. The opposite party denied the other allegations to be false and incorrect. There is no lapse or negligence on the part of the opposite party since it already issued the permit to the complainant on 08.05.2008. The opposite party is not liable to ay damages of Rs. 1,50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- as compensation and otherwise. In-fact, complainant is liable to pay penal charges for illegally diverting the sugarcane crop to some other factory in violation of terms of the agreement. Complainant filed false complaint in collusion with her husband only to make wrongful gain. The transaction between the parties is covered under an agreement and as per Rule-20 of A.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of supply and purchase) Rules, 1961. As such, in case of any disputes regarding the supply and purchase of cane between a factory and the cane grower, the cane grower shall approach to the cane commissioner as per Rule-65 of the Sugarcane Rules, 1961.
3. Both the parties have filed their affidavits reiterating the facts stated in the complaint and the counter respectively. On behalf of the complainant, Exs.A1 to A11 are marked. On behalf of the opposite party, Ex.B1 and B2 are marked. Opposite party have also filed written arguments. Heard both sides.
4. The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in issuing the permit (cutting order) and whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for? And if so to what relief the complainant is entitled to?
5. Ex.A1 is photocopy of pattedar pass book. Ex.A2 is original acknowledgement for agreement of sugarcane crop. Ex.A3 is office copy of notice dated 18.10.2008. Ex.A4 is original postal receipt of Ex.A3 notice. Ex.A5 is postal acknowledgement of Ex.A3 notice by opposite party. Ex.A6 is original reply notice dated 10.11.2008 by the opposite party to the notice dated 18.10.2008. Ex.A7 is office copy of reply dated 02.12.2008 to the reply notice. Ex. A8 is the postal acknowledgement of Ex.A7 reply. Ex.A9 is certified copy of letter dated 12.05.2008 addressed by Tahsildar, Nyalkal to R.D.O. Sangreddy reporting damage of crop of complainant. Ex.A10 are the photos. Ex.A11 is the compact disc.
Ex.B1 is the acknowledgement of complainant regard to permit (cutting order). Ex.B2 is the reply dated 10.11.2008 to the notice dated 18.10.2008.
A perusal of photocopy of form No. 3 (filed by opposite party) show that the opposite party entered into an agreement with complainant to receive the sugarcane for the season 2007-2008 which is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the complainant is owner and possessor of the land in Sy. No. 60 situate at Hadnoor village of Medak District. The opposite party contends that the complainant is not a consumer and this forum has no jurisdiction. And further it says that it has issued the permit (cutting order) on 08.05.2008 and it was the complainant who did not supply the sugarcane. The complainant alleges that as the opposite party failed to issue permit on time, the sugarcane burnt away and that in spite of repeated requests, the opposite party failed to issue the permits. Since there is an agreement between the parties, the complainant could not cut the sugarcane and supply of opposite party only in view of non issue of permit (cutting order) by the opposite party. The photos and the copy of letter addressed by Tahsildar, Nyalkal to RDO, Sangareddy filed by the complainant show that the entire sugarcane crop of the complainant burnt away causing damage to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-. This is not disproved by the opposite party.
Though the complainant is the supplier of sugarcane, it is the opposite party which is gaining through the goods supplied by complainant by way of selling the products of the goods so supplied, hence, the complainant is well within the meaning of “consumer” as contemplated under the Act. Since the parties to the complainant are located within the territorial jurisdiction and since the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this forum and the claim of complainant is within the pecuniary limits, this forum is rightly empowered to deal with the matter.
Now it has to be seen whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in issuing the permit (cutting order) or not. As a matter of fact, the sugarcane was ready for harvest in the month of April, 2008 itself. The opposite party failed to explain why it took so much time for issuing the permit (cutting order). Though the opposite party contends that it issued the permit on 08.05.2008, the permit slip (Ex.B1) does not bear any date and time nor it bears the signature of complainant acknowledging the permit order. If really the opposite party had issued the permit on time, there was no need for the complainant to wait for long time since the harvesting period had already commenced and it is but natural that when the crop is not harvested on proper time, it would become dry and that might be the reason the sugarcane crop might have been burnt. As per complainant, the sugarcane crop burnt on 12.05.2008 which is in the month of May, which is a peak month in summer season. Had really the opposite party issued the permit on time, there was no necessity or need for the complainant to address a notice. The best course left was to prove that the permit was issued on time is to produce the outward register and it is for the opposite party to produce the relevant records available with it but in this case, the opposite party withheld the best information for the reasons best known to them and always harping on stating that it issued the permit on time. Though opposite party alleged that the complainant supplied the sugarcane to other factory, it failed to prove the same by lending proper evidence. In such an absence, the contention of the opposite party cannot be believed. No innocent farmer would dare approach a court seeking relief against the wrong doer. This itself shows that the opposite party failed to issue the permit on time, which resulted in loss/damage of sugarcane crop. The damage assessed by the MRI is not disputed by the opposite party.
The opposite party did not evince any interest to show that the complainant diverted the sugarcane to other factory. Had really the complainant did so, the best course left to opposite party is to summon the record from the factory to which complainant diverted the sugarcane. Even the opposite party failed to furnish the name, place and address of the factory to which the sugarcane was diverted by complainant. Except making bald and vague allegation, the opposite party took no pains to prove its own contention. The complainant has proved that on account of non issue of permit on time, the sugarcane crop burnt away and now the burden shifts on the opposite party to disprove the same. The opposite party failed to disprove the claim of complainant. The opposite party further argued that the transaction between the parties is covered under an agreement and as per Rule-20 of A.P. Sugarcane (regulation of supply and purchase) Rules, 1961, in case of any disputes regarding the supply and purchase of cane between a factory and the cane grower, the cane grower shall approach to the cane commissioner as per Rule-65 of the sugarcane Rules, 1961. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act clearly contemplates that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. And in view of specific provision, the right of the complainant is not ousted under the Act. Therefore, in view of the matter, the opposite party failed to disprove the claim of the complainant and the complainant is rightly entitled for damages. Accordingly, we allow the complaint of complainant in the following aspects.
6. Therefore, for the above reasons, we are inclined to accept the contention of the complainant that she sustained loss/damage on account of non issue of permit (cutting order) by the opposite party. These facts goes to show that there is gross negligence on the part of opposite party in rendering the service.
7. In the result the complaint is allowed the claim of the complainant and direct the opposite party to reimburse Rs.1,50,000/- towards damage of the sugarcane crop and further to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for the negligent services rendered and also to pay costs of Rs.500/-. Time for compliance : one month.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this 27th day of August, 2010.
Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT (FAC) LADY MEMBER
Copy to
1) The Complainant Copy delivered to the Complainant/
2) The Opposite party Opposite party On _________
3) spare copy dis.No. /2010, dt.
