DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: BHADRAK
Dated the 4th day of February, 2021
C.D Case No. 118 of 2020
1. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Presiding Member
2. Afsara Begum, Member
Sri Uddhaba Charana Sahoo
At/PO- Gobindpur, Via- Asurali
District- Bhadrak. 756137 ………….. Complainant.
Versus
- The Secretary, BARAGADA S.C.S Ltd,
At/Po- Korda, Via- Asurali
District- Bhadrak , 756137.
- The Assistant Registrar Co-Operative Societies Ltd , Bhadrak
At/Po/District- Bhadrak. Odisha.
- The Civil Supplies Officer-Cum- District Magistrate ,Bhadrak
At/Po/District- Bhadrak. Odisha.
- The Collector Bhadrak.
At/Po/District- Bhadrak. Odisha
Counsel For Complainant: Authorized representative.
Counsel For the OP No. 1: Advocate Sri S.K.Dey and associates.
Counsel For the OP No. 2: Authorized representative.
Counsel For the OP No. 3 & 4: Ex-parte
Date of hearing: 03.02.2021
Date of order: 04.02.2021
BASANTA KUMAR MALLICK, PRESIDING MEMBER
This dispute arises out of a complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the O.Ps.
The facts of the case as narrated in the complaint are to the effect that the complainant is a member of Baragada S.C.S Ltd. In the procurement season 2018-2019 the complainant had sold paddy in the Baragada S.C.S Ltd. Accordingly he has obtained vender receipt. Though 178 Nos of farmers had received Rs.1750/- per quintal of paddy, the complainant along with other farmers were paid Rs.1500/- per quintal. As such complainant refused to accept the amount and accordingly complained before the higher authorities of O.P No.1. Since the date of delivery of the paddy till today no auctioned initiated against the O.P No.1. Hence he prays for a direction against O.P No.1 to refund the price of the paddy with 24% interest and compensation of Rs. 10,000/-.
O.Ps No.1 objected the claim of the complainant and contested the case. OP No. 1, in submitting written version, has stated that the complaint filed against the answering OP N0. 1 is not sustainable and liable to be dismissed as the said OP has no role to play for settlement of claim as only duty of the O.P No.1 is to verify the quality of paddy and issue vender receipt to the farmer. As per guideline of the Govt. one committee consisting seven members has been constituted by the Govt. to decide the quality of the paddy . Op No.1 is the authorized agent to purchase paddy from the eligible Farmers on behalf of the Govt. Since the complainant is the vender of the paddy cannot be regarded as a consumer as defined u/s 2 (7) (i) of C.P Act 2019.Hence the complainant is not a consumer for which this case of the complainant be dismissed with cost.
O.Ps No.2 objected the claim of the complainant and contested the case. OP No. 2, in submitting written version, has stated that he has received this grievance of complainant from the District administration and accordingly one enquiry was conducted by him where in it is observed that 100- bags of paddy has been kept away or stolen by somebody which should be investigated by the local police. The purchaser officer could not produce the paddy analysis register in order to ascertain the truth of the statement of both petitioner and purchaser. Accordingly the petitioner was instructed to proceed to local police station for redressal of his grievance.
O.Ps No.3 and 4 were set ex-parte due to non filing of written version.
The main question in this dispute hinges on whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of the C.P. Act. We have given our anxious consideration to this argument. From perusal of the pleadings, it is clear that the O.P No.1 has misappropriated the Govt. money. As such O.P No.2 in his inquiry report has instructed the complainant to proceed to the local police station. The material evidence available on record revels that the complainant has sold the paddy to O.P No.1 on receipt of proper vender receipt which proves that O.P No.1 has received the paddy and has taken to his custody . Any theft of paddy is the responsibility of O.P No.1 to report to the local police for investigation or to pay the cost 0of the paddy to the vender/ Complainant. Hence it a clean case of misappropriation and fraud disguised in criminal nature which is not maintainable in this commission . More over in consumer protection Act 2019-
(7) "Consumer" means any person who—
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred paymentand 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) hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires 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 service for any commercial purpose.
As to our considered view complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of C.P Act. Hence ordered;
ORDER
In the result, it cannot definitely be said as complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Sec. 7(1) & (ii) of C.P. Act. 2019.
Taking all the above facts and circumstances into consideration, we are of considered view that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and there is no prima facie material to show that the O.Ps are deficient in rendering service to the complainant.
Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed.
