BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD

F.A.No1014 OF 2010 AGAINST C.C.NO.74 OF 2009 DISTRICT FORUM MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY.

Between:

The General Manager,
Trident Sugars Ltd.,
Madhunagar, Zaheerabad

Medak Dist.

                                                        Appellant/opposite party

        A N D

Mohd. Mahboob Ali S/o Mastan Sab
Aged about 50 yrs, Occ: Agriculture
r/o Hadnoor Village, Nyalkal Mandal
Medak District

                                                        Respondent/complainant                                              

F.A.No.1015 OF 2010 AGAINST C.C.NO.75 OF 2009

Between:

The General Manager,
Trident Sugars Ltd.,
Madhunagar, Zaheerabad

Medak Dist.

                                                        Appellant/opposite party

        A N D

Smt Qamar Sultana @ Qamar
W/o Mohd. Mahboob Ali
Aged about 48 yrs, Occ: Agriculture
and Household. r/o Hadnoor Village, Nyalkal Mandal
Medak District

                                                        Respondent/complainant

Counsel for the Appellant                      Sri C.R.Sridharan

Counsel for the Respondent                   M/s Gopi Rajesh Associates

QUORUM:   SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
               

                                                AND

SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER

FRIDAY THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL

                                TWO THOUSAND TWELVE

Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)

                                        ***

1.             Both appeals arise from same facts and identical circumstances and as such they are taken up for disposal together. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to as they have been referred in the complaint. F.A.No.1014 of 2010 is taken as lead case.

2.             The complainant is the owner and possessor of land to an extent,Ac.3.00gts in Sy.No. 60 situate at Hadnoor village. The complainant used to raise sugar cane crop in his field. The complainant entered into agreement with the opposite party factory for supplying of sugarcane for the crushing season,2007-2008 through Ryot receipt No.217039 dated 26.09.2007. The opposite party has not issued riot to the complainant till the closure of the factory for the season 2007-2008.  The complainant had cut down the standing sugar crop and removed it from the field to the bund of the land for which he incurred an amount of `20,000/-. The opposite party had not issued the permit in time whereby the complainant incurred heavy expenditure. The complainant got issued notice on 20.10.2008 for which the opposite party has issued reply.

3.             The opposite party resisted the claim on the premise that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section 2(1) (d) of the C.P.Act. The complainant has not purchased the goods from the opposite party by paying price nor availed service of the opposite party for any consideration. The opposite party is manufacturing sugar and the complainant has been supplying his sugar cane for which the opposite party is paying price of the sugar cane to the complainant.

4.             The opposite party issued permit (cutting order) to the complainant on 8.05.2008. The complainant supplied 43,000MTs of burnt sugar cane from 15.05.2008 to 23.05.2008 to the opposite party factory and he received the entire bills for the cane supplied from his field. The complainant has not sustained any kind of loss. The dispute is to be decided by Cane Commissioner under Rule 65 of Sugar Cane Rules,1961.

5.             The complainant in support of his claim filed his affidavit and the documents, ExA1 to A9 and on behalf of the opposite party its Senior Manager (Cane) has filed his affidavit and the documents, ExB1 to B4.

6.             The District Forum observed that the complainant is a consumer and the remedy provided under the provisions of the Consumer Protecting Act is in addition to the remedy provided under provisions of Sugar Cane Rules,1961.

7.             The opposite party has filed the appeal contending that the complainant is not consumer and that the complainant suppressed the fact that he received the permit on 8.05.2008 and he supplied about 43.020 MTs 9burnt cane) from 15.05.2008 to 23.05.2008 and that there was a fire accident in his field on 12.05.2008. It is contended that the sale of sugar cane is for commercial purpose and in terms of Rule 20 of the Sugar Cane Rules,1961, he has to approach the Cane Commissioner. The complainant failed to prove any loss or damage and as such he is not entitled to claim any amount.

8.             The points for consideration are:

i)      Whether the complainant is a consumer?

ii)      Whether the opposite party issued the cutting order/permit in time to the complainant?

iii)     To what relief?

9.             POINT NO.1:   The ownership and possession of the complainant of the land, extent, Ac.3.00gts in Sy.No. 60 situate at Hadnoor village and raising of sugar cane crop in his field by the complainant is not disputed.  It is not denied that the complainant entered into agreement with the opposite party factory for supplying of sugarcane for the crushing season, 2007-2008 through Ryot No.217039 dated 26.09.2007.  The complainant is by profession an agriculturist. He had entered into agreement with the opposite party factory that the complainant would raise sugarcane in his field and sell it to the opposite party which would manufacture sugar from the sugar cane supplied by the complainant and the other farmers.

10.            The opposite party has taken two contradictory pleas that the complainant is not consumer in view of the agreement for supply of the sugar cane by him and on the contrary the opposite party would raise the plea that complainant supplied the sugar cane for commercial purpose. In the grounds of appeal, paragraphs, “d” and “I” the pleas of the opposite party read as under:

d)         The Hon’ble District Forum erred in considering the complaint on the ground that the respondent/complainant is a “consumer” within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CP Act’ for brevity) because the fact that the appellant/opposite party was/is running the factory for crushing the sugar cane for manufacture of sugar and other by products and the respondent/complainant supplied the cane under agreement dated 26.09.2007 and as such, the question of any deficiency of service cannot and does not arise and in view of the above the respondent/complainant does not come under the definition  of ‘consumer’ as defined under the CP Act.

i)          The Hon’ble District Forum failed to appreciate that the sale of the sugarcane by the respondent/complainant was for “commercial purpose” pursuant to the agreement dated 26/09/2007 and as such, Rule 20 of the A.P. Sugar Cane Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rule, 1961, is applicable and if he has any grievance, he shall approach the Cane Commissioner for the purpose of redressal.  Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum.

11.            The learned counsel for the opposite party has contended that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. He has relied upon the decision of the National Commission in “Purna Shakari Karkhana Pravheni vs Tatyarao Ramarao Kate parvheni” in R.P.No. 576 of 1993 decided on 1994. In the case, the National Commission held that the fact that the petitioner society assured the farmer that they would purchase for their factory, the sugarcane crop grown by the farmer on his land does not make the farmer consumer and failure to honour the promise a consumer dispute.

12.            The facts of the aforementioned case are not the same as the facts of the present case. In the present case, the factory entered into agreement with the farmers to purchase the sugarcane crop grown by them. As such the decision has no application to the facts of the case on hand. It is pertninent to note that the receipt issued by the opposite party would show the amount paid was harvest charges which indicates the service rendered by the opposite party to the complainant who cultivates his field for the purpose of eking out his livelihood.

13.            In “Malaprabha Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd vs Sri Manik and others” II(2007)CPJ 276(NC), the National Commission held that the factory crushed sugarcane of influential members in excess of limit of 40 tons per share and allowed varying amounts of compensation to the farmers whose sugarcane was crushed by the Factory.  The National Commission held the farmers as consumers within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act and confirmed the order passed by the District Forum and State Commission in favour of the farmer.

14.            The plea of the opposite party that in view of the provisions of the A.P .Sugarcane(Regulation of supply and purchase Rules,1961 the complainant has to approach the Cane Commissioner and not the Consumer Forum is rightly negatived by the District Forum in the light of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act which provides for an additional remedy to the party. As such the point is answered against the opposite party.

15.            POINT NO.2:      It is not disputed that the sugarcane raised in the complainant’s field was ready by the month of April, 2008 . The opposite party contends that it had issued the permit on 17.05.2008. The District Forum disbelieved the cutting order being issued in the month of May,2008 on the premise that the document contains signature of the official with different dates and unauthenticated corrections and that it does not contain particulars as to on which date the complainant had signed it. It is observed by the District Forum that had the opposite party issued the permit on 17.05.2008, the complainant had not necessity to get issued notice through his advocate to the opposite parties.  The grounds of appeal do not deal with or attempt to explain as to why there is discrepancy in dates on the permit.

16.            A new plea is raised in the appeal that the complainant suppressed the fact that there was a fire accident in his field on 12.05.2008 and the opposite party paid the entire amount due to the complainant. The fire accident theory is introduced for the first time in the appeal and there is no mention of any fire accident in the field of the complainant in the written version or evidence adduced by the opposite party. Thus,  it is established that the opposite party delayed in issuing the permit to the complainant.

17.            The learned counsel for the opposite party has contended that the amount of `1,70,000/- was awarded towards damage of sugarcane crop. In the notice dated 18.10.2008 and 10.11.2008 the complainant claimed a sum of `1,50,000/- towards loss stated to have been suffered. The District Forum awarded an amount of `1,70,000/- without taking into consideration of the amount claimed as damages. The District Forum awarded an amount of `5,000/- towards cutting charges against the claim for `20,000/-. The complainant raised the sugarcane crop in an extent of Ac.3.00gts. The cane invoice shows that the complainant had sold the sugarcane of 39 Tons from 15.05.2008 till 23.05.2008 and there was not bad quality of the crop. The invoice establishes payment of cutting charges to the tune of `7,000/-. The District Forum might have taken into consideration of the amount of `7,000/- paid towards cutting charges while awarding the sum of `5,000/- as compensation for cutting charges.

18.            The aforementioned discussion would draw inference that the opposite party had not promptly issued cutting order when the sugarcane crop was ripe for harvest in the month of April, 2008 and due to the delay caused in issuing the permit, the crop was damaged as it could not be harvested. Taking into consideration of the extent of the land cultivated, the quantity of crop delivered to the opposite patty, and the claim for a sum of `1,50,000/- by the complainant at the earliest point of time by way of issuing the notice to the opposite party, we reduce the amount of `1,70,000/- awarded by the District Forum to `1,00,000/- and maintain the rest of the order.

19.            In F.A.No.1015 of 2010, the facts and circumstances being similar including the extent of land cultivated  and the only change is in regard to the amount awarded of `1,50,000/-, we are inclined to reduce the amount to Rs.90,000/- and maintain the rest of the order.

20.            In the result, the appeal F.A.No.1014 of 2010 is allowed by modifying the order of the District Forum and the amount awarded `1,70,000/- is reduced to `1,00,000/- and rest of the order is confirmed.  No costs.

In the result, the appeal F.A.No.1015 of 2010 is allowed by modifying the order of the District Forum and the amount awarded `1,50,000/- is reduced to `90,000/- and rest of the order is confirmed.  No costs.

                                                                                MEMBER

                                                                                MEMBER

                                                                             Dt.27.04.2012

KMK*