Government of Karnataka envisaged a scheme for purchase of certain agriculture commodities by providing support price to the farmers only throughout the State.  Karnataka State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Ltd., having a branch at Koppal has established purchasing centres for purchase of maize directly from the farmers in Koppal, Kushtagi and Kukanoor on behalf of the Government.  Purchase of maize at Kukanoor Purchasing Centre has to be done by A.P.M.C. Yelaburga.  Assistant Agricultural Officer at Kukanoor is the officer responsible for issue of Fair Average Quality Certificate in respect of commodity to be purchased at the purchasing center, Kukanoor.  The description of OP No.1 in the original complaint appears to be incorrect as could be seen from contents of paragraph – 2 of the written version filed by OP No.1 and OP No.2.  In the circumstances, the cause title of OP No.1 is amended as per memo dated: 10-11-2014 filed by the complainant.

            2.  The complainant is a farmer residing in Veerapur village of Yelaburga taluk, who own 1 acre 70 guntas of land in Sy.No. 80 of Veerapur village and 4 acres of land in Sy.No.219 of Benakal village, who had grown maize crop during the year 2013-14.  His name has been registered for purchase of maize as per the Certificate No.158 dated: 26-12-2013 issued by the Karnataka State Co-Operative Marketing Federation, Koppal branch.  This farmer has been permitted to bring 40 Qtls., of maize to the purchasing centre at Kukanoor on
26-02-2014.

            3.  In the complaint, the complainant states that he has brought 200 bags full of maize to the purchasing centre at Kukanoor on
02-01-2014 and he was given toke No.16 for having received so much quantity.  The complainant claims that as per the instructions from No.2 he got maize weighted and each bag weighing 50 KG and total quantity of the maize delivered was 100 Qtls.,

            4.  The Assistant Agriculture Officer (OP No.3) has issued FAQ Certificate as per Ex.A.3, which is extracted below;

            5.  As per the description of work entrusted by Karnataka Co-Operative Federation Ltd., Koppal Branch (Ex.B.12), the following distribution of work has been arranged.

            6.  According to the complainant, OP No.2 has not issued “zsÁ£Àå ¥ÁªÀw gÀ²Ã¢”  (delivery note?) and the price for the quantity of the maize purchased has not been paid to him and thus there exists a deficiency in service and therefore approached this Forum seeking the recovery of the price of the 100 Qtls., of maize sold by him amounting to Rs.1,31,000/- and also for the price of 200 empty bags valued at Rs.2,000/- and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental agony and monitory loss.

            7.  OP No.1 disputed that the complainant is the owner of land in Veerapur village and he has not grown the maize during 2013-14.  The RTC furnished by OP No.1 vide Ex.B.16 to Ex.B.21 discloses that the complainant is a farmer residing in Veerapur village and he owns certain extend of lands.  In all these RTC extracts, the name of the crop grown has not been mentioned by the Village Accountant.  In col.No.12.3, the nature of cultivation is shows as “1”, which means the crop was grown in that year also by the farmer.  The concerned Village Accountant has not entered the crop grown.  Merely because the Col.No.12.9 is left blank it can not be stated no crop has been grown.  The certificates, Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.4 issued by the Village Accountant, Benakal on 31-12-2013 are sufficient to conclude that the complainant has grown maize crop in the land belonging to him during relevant year. 

            8.  In paragraph – 10,11 & 12 of the written version, the OP No.1 contended as follows;

“10.  Xxxxxxx, the opponent No.1 is Government Authority constituted by the State Government and as per Government order opponent No.1 is purchasing maize grown by the farmers under the fixed supporting price in order to support the agricultural activities for the farmers.  Opponent No.2 and 3 are the co-workers for the said purchase and are working in different stages while purchasing the maize i.e., managing crowd of farmers, grading of maize, weighing, etc.,  After announcement of purchase of maize with supported price by the Government number of farmers have came with their maize to the purchasing center.  By this, huge crowd of farmers and their goods vehicle are being created.  In order to manage this crowd and to carry on purchase activity in a systematic manner the Opponent No.2 is issuing tokens with serial numbers to the farmers on first-come-first-out (FIFO) basis.  Accordingly the farmers according to their respective token number have to approach the grading authority i.e., Opponent No.3 in a queue.  Further it is submitted that in the said token except the name and place of the farmer, token number and date, nothing will be mentioned about the quality or quantity of the goods.  Further it submitted that the said token is not a acknowledgment of receipt of goods by the farmers.  The opponent No.3 will physically verify the goods of the farmers as per serial number of que and will prepare FAQ certificate by mentioning type, color and moisture contents of maize.  At the same time opponent No.3 will also verify and collect the documents submitted by the farmers for availing the benefits of the Government scheme.  Thereafter opponent No.3 will handover all the documents collected by the farmers along with FAQ certificate to opponent No.2 and intimate the farmers to approach opponent No.2 for further process.  Absolutely the opponent No.3 has no authority to weigh the maize bags as weighing work is not entrusted to him.  The opponent No.2 after receiving said documents from opponent No.3 will call for farmers to deliver their maize bags for weighing.  After taking delivery will weigh the said maize bags and will issue bill to the farmers in which quantity of goods, rate, date, total amount payable to the farmers will be mentioned.  The opponent No.2 will keep all those documents with him and will send the said maize bags to warehouse through Delivery Order (D.O.).  At the end of each day Warehouse authority will issue Warehouse Bond to opponent No.1 about the receipt of the maize bags.  Thereafter opponent No.1 will collect all the documents from opponent No.2.  The Opponent No.1 will tally Delivery Order with Warehouse Bond.  Thereafter after confirming the same will transfer the amount to the respective farmers through RTGS only.

11.  That on the alleged date, the complainant has not delivered his goods to opponent No.2 for weighing.  So also no such documents are produced by the opponent No.3 to opponent No.2 in respect of complainant goods.  Further it is submitted that no maize bags belonging to the complainant were sent to the Warehouse.  Hence without receiving goods from the complainant into the warehouse neither this opponent nor any of the opponents are liable to make payment.  Further more no bill was issued to the complainant in view of non-receipt of goods by the opponent No.2 from the complainant.  Hence the question of making payment or causing huge loss to him does not at all arise.

12.  It is pertinent to note that the FAQ certificate is the official document required to be prepared by opponent No.3 and it is to be handed over to opponent No.2 alongwith other documents.  This FAQ certificate cannot be given to the seller of the goods.  This being the fact the complainant has illegally got the said FAQ certificate as to 200 bags of maize without delivering the same to the Opponent No.2.  By taking undue advantage of the said documents he has filed this false complaint against these opponents in order to harass them and to obtain wrongful gain.  Hence the complaint is liable to dismissed.”

            9.  Contention raised by OP No.2 in paragraph 3 to 6 reads as follows;

3. x x x x the contents of Para No.3 of the complaint are denied, the duty of four opponents is required while purchasing the food grain from the farmers by the marketing federation.  The farmers first approaches the assistant agriculture officer opponent No.3.  he test the Maize corn and its potential percentage and moisture Secondly the APMC and village accountant horticulture officer in purchase process at Kukanoor they would verify the document like RTC, certificate of village account to show that the complainant has grown this much of the Maize crop in particular Survey number and Acre and Gunta’s.  They are endorsing the same and forwarding the file to the market federation agency which is purchasing the food produce on behalf of the Government from farmers.  The Karnataka State co-operative marketing agency weight the agriculture produce (maize) and they are recording how much quintal are produced and accepts same for purchase and then forwarding the same farmer to the opponent No.2.  The opponent No.2 as per direction of the marketing federation he is preparing the bills how much quantity is received by the federation and how much amount to be paid.  Then opponent No.2 get the signature of official in charge of marketing federation in Kuknoor in purchase point and forwarding the bills and connected documents to the federation branch office at Koppal for online payment.  Then the marketing federation in charge officer after satisfying the purchase documents bills, depositing the required amount to the account of farmer by online.  So in the present case the complainant must produce the above said documents for having sold 200 bags of maize corn on 2/1/2014.  The Token No.16 receipt dated 2/1/2014 bears the seal of TAPCMS of opponent No.2 but the signature on it does not belongs to opponent No.2.  So the opponent No.2 totally denied the fact that he has issued the token No.16 to the complaint on 2/1/2014.  Further on record of right on back side horticulture officer, village accountant and federation officials putting the endorsement.  In the present case the Kanataka state co-operative market federation official is the authority to speak about the case of the complainant’s wrong address is shown so they have not been appeared.  Further Horticulture officer has not been made party.  So the complaint it self is not maintainable.

4.  The contents of para No.4 of complaint are false baseless and not trustworthy.  The true facts are suppressed by the complainant.  It appears by hook or cook playing mischief taken collusive receipt from the respondent No.3.  but he is not the sole authority to say that the two hundred Maize corn of complainant purchased by the marking federation agency and billed by opponent No.2 TAPCMS.  The FAQ certificate issued by opponent No.3 clearly goes to show that 200 quintals of Maize are produced before him on 3/1/2014.  If it is so how it is possible for the complainant to obtain token bearing serial No.16 on 2/1/2014 from opponent No.2.  the FAQ certificate produced before the court bears the date 3/1/2014.  So the transactions of 200 bags Maize is false one so on this point the petition is liable to dismissed with cost.  The contents of para No.4 are falsely created.  If at all the Maize crops of 200 bags is produced on 2/1/2014 the complainant must produce the marketing federation documents and endorsement of the horticulture officer for having purchased the goods on that day.

5.  xxxx, the contents of para No.5 of the complaint are false, self created to play the fraud on the opponent No.2 and on marketing federation.  When the complainant has not produced 200 bags on 20/1/2014 the question of issuing the bills by the opponent No.2 does not arise.  What ever the agriculture produce is brought to the purchase the duty independently and giving the endorsement.  So the claim of the complaint that due to delay by issuing the bill by the opponent No.2.  and giving finance harassment all are false.

6.  xxxx, the contents of para No.6 of the complaint are denied he must prove the fact that he has produced 200 bags of Maize crop before the marketing federation authority and the said agency weighed the quantity of Maize and put the endorsement on the RTC and forwarded same to billing purpose to opponent No.2, there is no material before court in this regard.  Hence the claim of Rs.1,83,000/- are false.  Neither the opponent No.2 nor the marketing federation is liable to pay the false claim amount of the complaint.

10.  Both the sides have adduced their evidence and documents have been marked; the details of which are available in the Annexure to this order.

11.  The concerned AAO has filed affidavit evidence on 17-01-2015 in this Forum, wherein he stated as follows;

“4. ಪಿರ್ಯಾದಿದಾರನು ಹೇಳಿದ 3ನೇ ಪ್ಯಾರಾದಲ್ಲಿಯ ಸಂಗತಿಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಪಿರ್ಯಾದಿದಾರನ ಮೆಕ್ಕೆಜೋಳವನ್ನು ಖರೀದಿ ಕೇಂದ್ರ ಕೂಕನೂರು ಶಾಖೆಗೆ ತಂದಿದ್ದು, ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ಎದುರುದಾರ ನಂ.2 ಇವರು 200 ಚೀಲ ಮೆಕ್ಕೆಜೋಳ ಮುಟ್ಟಿದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಟೋಕನ್ ನಂಬರ್ 16 ಇದನ್ನು ಪಿರ್ಯಾದಿದಾರನಿಗೆ ನೀಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದ್ದು, ಇದರಿಂದ ನಾನು ಯಾವುದೇ ರೀತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಜವಾಬ್ದಾರನಾಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.

5.  ಪಿರ್ಯಾದಿದಾರನು ಹೇಳಿದ 4ನೇ ಪ್ಯಾರಾದಲ್ಲಿಯ ವಿಷಯದಂತೆ ನಾನು ಎದುರುದಾರ ನಂ.2 ಇವರ ನಿರ್ದೇಶನದಂತೆ 200 ಚೀಲ ಮೆಕ್ಕೆಜೋಳ ತೂಕ ಮಾಡಿಸಿ ಒಟ್ಟು 200 ಚೀಲ ಮೆಕ್ಕೆಜೋಳ ಪ್ರತಿಯೊಂದು ಚೀಲ 50 ಕೆ.ಜಿ. ಇದ್ದು ಒಟ್ಟು 100 ಕ್ವಿಂಟಲ್ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ ಎನ್ನುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ತೂಕ ಮಾಡಿಸಿ ಎಫ್.ಎ.ಕ್ಯೂ. ಗುಣಮಟ್ಟದ ತೂಕದ ದೃಢೀಕರಣ ಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ದಿನಾಂಕ: 03-01-2014 ರಂದು ಪಿರ್ಯಾದಿದಾರನಿಗೆ ನೀಡಲಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ.  ಸದರಿ ಪ್ರಕರಣದಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು ಯಾವುದೇ ರೀತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಹೊಣೆಗಾರನಾಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.  ಕಾರಣ ಸದರಿ ಮೆಕ್ಕೆಜೋಳವನ್ನು ಎದುರುದಾರ ನಂ.1 ಮತ್ತು 2 ಇವರು ಖರೀದಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.  ಆದರೆ ನಾನು ರೈತರು ಕ್ಯಾಶ್ ರಿಸಿಪ್ಟ್ ತಂದಲ್ಲಿ ಅಂತಹವರಿಗೆ ನೇರವಾಗಿ ಅವರ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ ಖಾತೆಗೆ ಹಣ ಜಮಾ ಆಗುತ್ತದೆ.  ಪಿರ್ಯಾದಿದಾರನು ಎದುರುದಾರ ನಂ.1 ಮತ್ತು ನಂ.2 ಇವರಿಗೆ ಮೆಕ್ಕಜೋಳವನ್ನು ನೀಡಿದ್ದಕ್ಕೆ ಅವರಿಗೆ ಎದುರುದಾರ ನಂ.2 ಇವರು ಪಿರ್ಯಾದಿದಾರನಿಗೆ ಟೋಕನ್ ನಂಬರ್ 16 ನೀಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದು ಪಿರ್ಯಾದಿದಾರನೇ ತಿಳಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾನೆ.

6. ಸದರಿ ಪಿರ್ಯಾದಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಪಿರ್ಯಾದಿದಾರನು ತನ್ನ ಮೆಕ್ಕೆಜೋಳವನ್ನು ಎದುರುದಾರ 1 ಮತ್ತು 2 ಇವರಿಗೆ ಮಾರಾಟ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ.  ಆದರೆ ಇವರಿಂದ ನನಗೆ ಹಣ ಪಾವತಿಯಾಗಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಮಾನ್ಯ ಗ್ರಾಹಕರ ವೇದಿಕೆಗೆ ಪಿರ್ಯಾದಿಯನ್ನು ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿದ್ದು, ಇದರಿಂದ ನಾನು ಯಾವುದೇ ರೀತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಹೊಣೆಗಾರನಾಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.  ಪಿರ್ಯಾದಿದಾರನು ವಿನಾಕಾರನ ನನ್ನನ್ನು ಎದುರುದಾರ ನಂ.3 ರನ್ನಾಗಿ ಸದರಿ ಪ್ರಕರಣದಲ್ಲಿ ಸೇರಿಸಿ ಎದುರುದಾರನಿಗೆ ಅನಾನುಕೂಲ ಮಾಡಿರುವುದರಿಂದ ಸದರಿ ಪ್ರಕರಣದಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನನ್ನು ಎದುರುದಾರ ನಂ.3 ಇವರನ್ನು ಪ್ರಕರಣದಿಂದ ವಜಾಮಾಡಬೇಕೆಂದು ಕೇಳಿಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತೇನೆ.” 

12.  During the course of proceedings before this Forum, interrogatories have been put by the complainant containing as many as 31 questions to be answered by the opposite parties.  OP No.1 & 2 have given separate answers to each one of these question.  An analysis of questions and answers there-off provides factual matrix of the case under consideration.  The core question to be decided as whether or not the complainant has delivered 100 Qtls., of maize at purchasing centre in Kukanoor having regard to the fact that the Token No.16 is dated:
02-1-2014 and FAQ Certificate is dated: 03-01-2014 and there is no delivery note.

13.  On February 20, 2015, the complainant filed an application, IA No.1 U/O 11 Rule 14 CPC R/w Section 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986 requesting this Forum to issue direction to the opponents to produce the documents, which are in their possession in relation with the matter in question.

14.  In affidavit supporting this application, the applicant, complainant stated as follows;

“the opponents have stated in their objection and evidence that all the documents pertains to the project are leid in their custody.  But the documents which they have produced are not sufficient to the present dispute and subject matter of the case to decide effectively.  Hence it is just and necessary to issue directions to the opponent’s to produce all correspondence documents like Nondani patra, Crop grown certificates, from V.A., F.A.Q. certificates, RoR’s, Tokens and dhnya pavathi’s in regard to the list of formers mentioned in documents exhibits No.B-1 to B-11 to make clear in regard to the actual transactions held in there purchasing unit on 02-01-2014 and dated 03-01-2014 as shown in the exhibits No B-1 to B-11.  Hence it is just and necessary to issue directions to the opponents to produce the above said documents to do justice.”

15.  Elaborate arguments have been advanced as to the necessity of calling the records in the light of the fact that OP No.2 has furnished the statement showing the purchase of maize by the Federation in the year 2013-14 at the purchasing centre in Kukanoor from the farmers dated: 02-1-2014 and also 03-1-2014 as per Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.11.   The complainant has furnished two delivery notes, Ex.A.14 and Ex.A.15 dated: 03-1-2014 for supply of 100 Qtls., of maize by each farmers to whom token number 13 & 15 were issued on 02-1-2014 whose names are found in Ex.B.8 i.e., date of purchase on 03-1-2014 with receipt No. 58697 & 58698.

16.  The case has been posted for order on IA No.1 and we have studied entire records of the case under consideration before us.  During the course of arguments on IA No.1, counsel for OP No.2 has specifically requested us to decide the preliminary question raised in the written version as to the maintainability of the consumer complaint before this Forum in relation to the dispute.  Therefore, we have dealt with the said contention.  On bestowing our attention on this point, we have come to the conclusion that present complaint is not maintainable by the District Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act – 1986.  That being so, we are dismissing the complaint as not maintainable and therefore necessitated the passing of this Final order. 

            17.  U/sec. 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986, ‘consumer’ means –

1. buys any goods 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 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 f 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
2. [hires or avails of] any services 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 services 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 services for any commercial purpose];

18.  Clause (i) in the above provision of law is not at all attracts case because the complainant has not purchased any goods for consideration.  So clause (ii) of above provision, whether attracts or not is to be decided because the complainant claims deficiency in service.  A meticulous scrutiny of Clause (ii) mentioned above reveal that in order to  attract the above clause, the person who hires or avails of any service, must have paid some consideration or promise to pay consideration or partly paid or partly promised to pay consideration or not in system of deferred payment.  In the instant case, the complainant has not paid or promised to pay or partly paid any consideration to OP No.2 to whom he claims have sold 100 Qtls., of maize and therefore the complainant could be a ‘consumer’ as defined u/clause (ii) of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986.

19.  U/sec. 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986, ‘deficiency’ means – any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.

20.  Transaction in question is a sale simplicitor.  In other words, the relation between the complainant and OP No.2 is disclosed from the complaint averments could be nothing more than a seller and buyer.  Recovery of sale price do not come under the purview of definition of ‘service’.  Purchasing a agriculture commodity of support price prescribed by the Government from the farmers may be a service but definitely no consideration payable by such farmer and therefore do not come within the purview of consumer dispute.  Such scheme come only be a free service on behalf of the Government, which is excluded u/sec. 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986. 

21.  If the OP No.2 has accepted the sale transaction then perhaps the question of contention about the manner of performance might have arise.  But here is a case where the very sale transaction is disputed.  Therefore the manner of service requires no consideration.  As such the present complaint is not maintainable by this Forum.  The dispute is therefore required to be adjudicated by the proper Civil Court having jurisdiction to try the dispute.  Hence IA I needs no further consideration.

22.  In the light of the facts and law stated above, the complaint stands dismissed.

// ANNEXURE //

List of Documents Exhibited for the Complainant.

Witnesses examined for the Complainant / Respondent.