APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS

PRONOUNCED ON:  17^th   MAY,  2016

O R D E R

PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

          The complainant/respondent Dhurendrapal Singh is a sugarcane farmer, having 13 bigas of land in village  Simra Boripur, Tehsil and District Bareilly, U.P.  He is stated to have purchased 62 quintals of cane seeds of variety COJ 088 from the petitioner/opposite party (OP) Sugar Mill, Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. and 20 kgs of pesticides and 2.5 bags of DAP fertiliser.  He sowed the cane seed in 13 bigas of his land on 02.04.2007 and 03.04.2007, but as stated in the consumer complaint, only 20% of cane seeds germinated, resulting in loss to the farmer/complainant.  It was alleged in the consumer complaint that the seeds supplied by the petitioner/opposite party were not of good quality, as a result of which, he suffered a total loss of Rs. 1,30,000/- and that he should be compensated by the petitioner/opposite party for the said loss.  The complaint was resisted by the petitioner/opposite party by filing a written statement before the District Forum, in which they denied that the complainant had purchased 62.19 quintal of sugar-cane seeds from them.  It was stated that the complainant was a member of the Co-operative Sugar Cane Society, Faridpur, Bareilly and on the recommendation of the said Society and the application of the complainant, the opposite party had provided the said seeds on loan.  The petitioner further stated that they are running a scheme for the development of the mill area, under which high quality seeds of sugar cane are given on loan to farmers without charging interest, and the necessary technical advice is also given to them from skilled and experienced agricultural scientists for raising the crop.  It was also stated in the reply that the complainant did not come under the category of ‘Consumer’, as he had taken the seeds of sugarcane on loan for the purpose of his business and he gained considerable benefit by selling his crop.  The complainant had supplied 240 quintals of Sugarcane to the Mill between 22.12.2007 and 01.02.2008, and also repaid the loan taken by him.

2.      During proceedings before the District Forum, the petitioner/opposite party submitted an application raising a preliminary issue that the complainant did not fall in the category of ‘Consumer’.

3.      The District Forum, vide their order dated 11.02.2009, rejected the contention of the petitioner/opposite party and stated that the complainant came under the definition of ‘Consumer’ and the District Forum had jurisdiction to decide the complaint.  Being aggrieved against this interim order, the petitioner challenged the same by way of a revision petition before the State Commission.  The said revision petition having been dismissed by the State Commission, vide impugned order dated 08.02.2016, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

4.      During arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that there was an agreement between the Cane Growers Co-operative Society and the petitioner, Sugar Mill, under which, loans were being advanced by the Mill to the members of the Society, who were sugarcane farmers.  Under this arrangement, the Society agreed to sell sugarcane to the Mill during a particular season and a copy of such agreement is on record.  During the season 2007-2008, sugarcane of the members of the Society standing on 20797 hectares was to be supplied to the Mill.  Since loans were advanced by the Mill to the farmers, which were being repaid in the shape of sugarcane crop to the Mill, the farmers in question were not consumers, as it was a commercial activity.

5.      I have examined the material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.

6.      Admittedly, the complainant in question is a sugarcane farmer and he was to supply sugarcane to the petitioner Mill under the agreement made between the Cane Growers Co-operative Society and the Mill.  The sugarcane seeds and the technical know-how etc. are provided by the Mill as a part of their programme for the development of sugarcane area for the Mill.  It is evident from these facts that the complainant is earning his living by raising the sugarcane crop.  In case, the said crop fails on account of any reason, he has a right to be compensated for the loss suffered by him.  In the present case, it has been admitted by the petitioner/opposite party that they supplied the sugarcane seeds in the shape of loan to the complainant.  In case such crop had failed, it was the duty of the petitioner/opposite party to send their experts to the fields of the farmer and have an assessment made about the quantum of loss suffered, if any.  They could have obtained the help of agricultural experts from other agency as well, and could have sent samples for testing in same laboratory.  However, nothing of this sort, seems to have been done.  A plain reading of the explanation of Section 2(1)(d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act shows that if a person is earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, he falls under the definition of ‘Consumer’, even if he is indulging in a commercial activity.  In the present case, even if the contention of the petitioner/opposite party that the transaction between the Mill and the farmers were commercial in nature, is believed, even then the farmer comes under the definition of ‘Consumer’, because he is raising the said crop for earning his livelihood.  Moreover, such a farmer is not bound to sell his entire crop to the petitioner Mill alone.  His obligation is to supply the requisite quantity of sugarcane to the Mill, as laid down in the terms and conditions of the agreement between the Mill and the Co-operative Society.  However, he is free to dispose of his surplus crop, if any, in the open market, or to other Mills.  It shall, therefore, be not justifiable to say that the complainant is not a consumer, under the given circumstances.

7.      The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to an order passed by this Commission in Prithviraj Naryanrao Chavan & Anr. vs. The National Seeds Corporation Ltd., as reported in 1986-2013 Consumer 18015 (NS).  In the said case, the seeds were supplied under the seeds production programme of the National Seeds Corporation Ltd. to the farmers for the jute crop.  The respondent Corporation was to arrange at their expense, all the operations such as land preparation, sowing, manuring, plant protection, harvesting etc.  The complainants were assured a limited procurement price of Rs. 1,000/- per quintal of the seeds produced.  The entire quality of the seeds was to be purchased by the said Corporation, after being certified by the competent authority, as a part of buy-back transaction between the complainant and the opponent.  However, the facts in this case are not similar to the facts in the case at hand.  Most of the sugar mills in the country make arrangements for the development of sugarcane area in their vicinity, so as to ensure supply of sugarcane to them for running the operations of their mill.  For this purpose, they provide incentives to the farmers in the shape of loan, supply of inputs and providing technical know-how etc.  However, this arrangement does not mean that millions of farmers in the country, who are sugarcane growers, shall not fall under the definition of ‘Consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  In case, there is failure of crop on the fields of such farmers, due to any natural calamity or for defective inputs like seeds, fertilisers, pesticides etc., they are not barred from seeking compensation under relevant provisions of law/instructions.  It is felt, therefore, that it shall be wholly unjustified to label such farmers as non-consumers.

8.      Keeping in view the foregoing discussion, this revision petition is ordered to be dismissed and the concurrent findings recorded by the State Commission and the District Forum are upheld.  The District Forum is directed to decide the complaint filed by the farmer on merits, preferably within a period of three months, in accordance with law.