MR. JUSTICE A.P. SAHI, PRESIDENT

1. This revision petition has been filed by a farmer of district Pratapgarh assailing the order dated 08.01.2014 in appeal no. 2806 of 2012 passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow contending that the State Commission has committed an error by setting aside the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pratapgarh, whereby the complaint filed by the Petitioner being CC/209/2011 had been allowed on 26.09.2012.

2. The facts shorn of details are that the petitioner supplied a certain amount of paddy to the paddy purchase centre of the respondent Pradeshik Cooperative Federation, the chief goal whereof is to aid and assist farmers through a number of functions like supplying of seeds at subsidised rates and purchasing paddy. The said transaction is governed by the policies promulgated in this regard for which the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a letter dated 01.10.2010, clarifying the government order, under which these arrangements are made. The said policy requires purchase of such paddy that will yield 67% of Custom Milled rice and therefore the purchase centres are duty bound under law to purchase only that paddy that yields 67% rice and not less than that.
3. The complainant/ petitioner supplied paddy of the said quality to the extent of 61.60 quintals but his balance of 63 quintals were returned on the ground that the same was of a hybrid variety. It is this rejection which led to the filing of the complaint on 17.06.2011.
4. The District Commission allowed the complaint and held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the PCF, Manager and the in charge PCF Paddy purchasing centre, Sardeeh, Post Saifabad, Tehsil Patti, District- Pratapgarh.
5. A sum of Rs.65,000/- was awarded in lieu of the paddy with Rs.20,000/- as damages and Rs.2,000/- as costs.
6. The federation through the District Manager and two others filed an appeal being F.A. No. 2806 of 2012 and it was found that the appellants had not appeared before the District Commission and the complaint has been allowed ex parte to them. The State Commission came to the conclusion that since the paddy had been returned and had not been purchased there was no question of compensating the complainant but on the other hand also gave a reasoning that the hybrid paddy being a low yield variety, where the yield of rice is only 60%, the same was not permissible, hence there was no deficiency on the part of the purchase centre in refusing to purchase the said paddy.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant/ petitioner has urged that reversal of the order of the District Commission is unjust as the State Commission has failed to appreciate the fact that no distinction can be drawn by the purchasing centre in respect of the quality of paddy by refusing to accept the hybrid variety. It is urged that the policy documents nowhere draws this distinction and to the contrary a letter dated 25.04.2014 which was obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 has been pressed into service, to urge that the hybrid category of rice is under the common category and therefore there is no separate rates fixed. On the strength of this information received, the petitioner’s counsel has urged that in the absence of any segregation of the varieties of paddy to be purchased, the action of the purchase centre in refusing to receive the hybrid variety paddy is contrary to their own understanding and there is no such prohibition. Hence the refusal to receive the paddy is deficiency in service. It is also urged that this amounts to an unfair trade practice by the purchase centre which have been whimsical and have acted arbitrarily, which in effect is an omission to perform their services, which they are obliged in law to do.  With the aforesaid submissions it is urged that the impugned order of the State Commission deserves to be set aside and that of the District Commission deserves to be restored.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent federation has urged that the District Commission completely overlooked a vital aspect of the matter namely that no paddy can be purchased that yields less than 67% rice. Accordingly, since the hybrid variety yields hardly 60% of rice, the same was rightly declined by the purchase centre. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is not even a consumer, in as much as, these are not services that are offered and is rather a facilitation without there being any right of a person to compel the purchase centre to purchase hybrid paddy. The agriculturist or a farmer therefore is neither a consumer nor the transaction in question is in any way a service rendered. Learned counsel has cited the judgement in the case of National Seeds Corporation Limited Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr., (2012) 2 SCC 506 to contend that the nature of the service in those cases was held not to be covered under commercial transactions and to the same effect is the judgment in the case of  Nandan Biomatrix Ltd. Vs. S. Ambika Devi & Ors., (2022) 13 SCC 130.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has cited the following judgments in support of his submissions:
   1. Mahabir Auto stores Vs. Indian Oil Corporation, (1990) 3 SCC 752
   2. Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M. K. Gupta, (1994) 1 SCC 243
   3. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Bhavani, (2008)7 SCC 111
   4. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority vs. Vidya Chetal, (2019) 9 SCC 83
   5. Joint Labour commissioner Vs. Kesar Lal, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 327
   6. State of Maharashtra Vs. Shantaram Karbhari Pangavhane, 2010 SCC OnLine NCDRC 261
   7. Shri Prabhakar Vyankoba Aadone Vs. Superintendent, Civil Court (NCDRC), MANU/CF/0264/2002
   8. Agarwal Grain Syndicate Vs. Shaskiya Vasahat Grahak (NCDRC), MANU/CF0378/2012
   9. Malaprabha Co.op Sugar Factory Ltd. Vs. Sri Manik, 2007 SCC OnLine NCDRC 42
10. Having considered the submissions raised the petitioner cannot take the benefit of any information received through the RTI Act vide letter dated 25.04.2014, which was obviously long after the order passed by the State Commission. This document was neither on record before the District Commission or before the State Commission, consequently, this communication cannot be accepted as any additional material at this stage of revision as it did not have the opportunity to get tested as evidence. Even otherwise there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the said clarification was authorized by the concerned government department.
11. Consequently, the issue regarding the petitioner being a consumer or otherwise need not be gone into, in as much as, the fact remains that the supply of paddy was admittedly of hybrid variety which was not in dispute. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondent is correct in his submission that as per the policy referred to in the letter dated 01.10.2010, and brought on record by the petitioner himself, paddy which yields 67% of rice only can be accepted. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the hybrid paddy offered by the complainant could yield only 60% of milled rice and hence, the same could not be purchased by the federation or its officials as it would run counter to the government orders governing the issue. The petitioner has also not led evidence to establish that the disputed paddy could yield 67% rice.
12. Learned  counsel for the respondent has also submitted that there was no loss of paddy at  all and the hybrid paddy was returned was well within the custody of the petitioner as such no loss could have been incurred by the complainant. Be that as it may, the issue of assessing any loss on that count does not arise when the paddy was neither purchased by the respondent nor it could have been purchased in law.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that this form of purchase is discriminatory and is detrimental to the farming sector where their sweat and blood together are being denied excess to the markets on which they are highly dependent. It is also urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the federation is there for the benefit of the farmers and it should not have acted to their detriment by discriminating between the varieties of paddy. This argument is unsustainable as it does not amount to deficiency of service for the purpose of this dispute. The paddy was un-purchasable because of its admitted hybrid variety and even otherwise there was no loss caused to the complainant as the paddy was taken back by him.
14. Consequently, for all the reasons aforesaid, we do not find it necessary to discuss the judgments that have been cited at the bar. In the event, any fundamental right of the complainant has been violated, it is open to him to question the same before the appropriate forum, which cannot be gone into under the summary jurisdiction of the Consumer Protection Act. There is therefore no illegality or irregularity in the order of the State Commission so as to entertain this petition. The revision lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the complainant to seek any other appropriate remedy.