Amanchi Rajendra Prasad And Ors. vs Dabur Ayurvet Ltd. (Aqua)

THE main issue to be decided by this Commission in these revision petitions is whether the petitioners are the consumers under the Consumer Protection Act and whether the complaints filed by them can be treated as a consumer disputes.

THE case of the complainants in brief are as follows: Petitioners, complainants before the District Forum. The complainants are the owners of several acres of land in Motupalli village, which were converted into prawn ponds. The respondent -M/s. Dabur Ayurvet Ltd. (for short Dabur) had supplied feed and medicines for the growth of prawns. It is alleged in the complaint that it was issued by Dabur that if the feed and medicines supplied by them were put to use the product will give 24 to 30 count of prawns per kilogram. Bigger prawns will fetch more price and that cost Rs. 400 per kilogram approximately and if the size of the prawn is less the price per kg. would be Rs. 50 to Rs. 60 only. It is alleged that the growth of the prawns was very poor. Complainant referred the matter to the opposite party who sent a team from the feed company by the name Mr Lee who suspected failure of feed. It is the case of the complainant that OP No. 1, has sent their sales promoter Mr. Suresh who visited the ponds and found only 80 to 3000 count prawns in the ponds. On the other hand in a nearby pond where feed used was GP, Gold Coin and Avanthi those farmers got 23 count prawns. Meanwhile, the complainant sent one of the remaining bags of feed for chemical examination and it was found that there is a variation of components from the specifications indicated on the bag and in the physical stock. Further, the original label was allegedly removed and the label does not contain the date of manufacture and the date of expiry. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the complainant approached the District Forum to direct the opposite party to pay compensation ranging from Rs. 5 lakh to Rs. 18.5 lakh.

THIS was contested by the opposite party Dabur which stated that it is neither a necessary nor a proper party for adjudication of the complaint and had no dealings whatsoever with the complainants and has never sold any of its products to the complainants. The complainant had neither purchased any goods nor availed any service for any consideration. They have not mentioned the details of purchase such as quantity of feed, the brand, the quality and its ingredients in the complaint. The alleged feed has not been produced before the District Forum. It was alleged by the opposite party that these eight complaints have been filed at the instance of one Mr. Amanchi Srinivasa Rao, so as to avoid going to the State Commission. The complainants are not having any licence for engaging in prawn culture. M/s. Rajendra Enterprises of which Amanchi Srinivasa Rao is the proprietor is heavily indebted to the opposite party in business transaction and he has issued post -dated cheques to the opposite party towards the discharge of legal debts. All these cheques have bounced. The complainants have admitted before the District Forum that Shri Amanchi Srinivasa Rao of M/s. Rajendra Enterprises was neither an agent nor a distributor of M/s. Dabur Ayurvet Ltd. As there is no material or evidence to show that there was any express or implied warranty or guarantee given to the complainants that prawns count per kg will be between 24 and 30. Further, the sample was given to Anu Lab by Amanchi Srinivasa Rao and not by other complainants. This laboratory is not an agency authorized by the Government to analyse such samples. Further the report from CIBA Chennai was obtained after one year of the supply of the goods and no efforts were made to identify the samples and follow the procedure under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainants have not paid any consideration to Dabur and there are no documents to show that any purchase of feed. Further no proof has been shown about the report of Mr. Lee or Mr. Suresh. It is further pointed out that the District Forum had previously dismissed the batch of these complaints on the grounds that complicated questions of facts and law are involved and the Civil Court is the proper forum to decide the dispute. Dissatisfied by this order the complainants had preferred appeal Nos. 718 of 2006 to 725 of 2006 before the State Commission. The State Commission had remanded the matter to the District Forum to hear and decide the matter on merits afresh. Thereafter the District Forum allowed the complaints and directed Dabur to pay the complainants a sum of Rs. 5.00 lakh to Rs. 18.5 lakh along with interest @ 12% per annum from 1.10.2005 till the date of realization and also to pay an amount of Rs. 2000 towards cost of litigation. The State Commission considered the following points for determination: 1. Whether Shri Amanchi Srinivas Rao, Proprietor of Rajendra Enterprises is a necessary party to the proceedings and whether for non -joinder of necessary party, the complaint is maintainable? 2. Whether there was privity of contract between the complainants and the opposite party? 3. Whether the dispute raised by the complainants is a consumer dispute? 4. Whether the finding of the District Forum relying on Anu Lab Report and report of CIBA, Chennai is sustainable? 5. Whether the order passed by the District Forum is sustainable?

The State Commission held that Shri Amanchi Srinivasa Rao, Proprietor of Rajendra Enterprises was neither an agent nor a distributor of Dabur. There is no dispute that he purchased feed and medicines as proprietor of Rajendra Enterprises for Rs. 39,55,731 and has issued cheques to Dabur. The said cheques were dishonoured and the State Commission held that there is no necessity to implead Shri Rao as party to the proceedings. The State Commission held that there is no evidence put forward by the complainant to show that at the instance of Shri A.S. Rao the said complaints have been filed. 2. The appellant has contended that there is no privity of contract between the complainants and Dabur with regard to the purchase of feed and medicines. The State Commission has relied upon the decision reported in (1994) 1 Supreme Court Cases 397, Indian Oil Corporation v. Consumer Protection Council, Kerala and Another.

Shri Amanchi Srinivasa Rao, Proprietor of Rajendra Enterprises has purchased feed and medicines and has issued bills in favour of one of the complainants A. Rajendra Prasad towards the purchase of feed and medicines and therefore the allegation of the complainants that they purchased feed and medicines from Dabur was not proved. Shri A. S Rao, Proprietor of Rajendra Enterprises was neither an agent nor a distributor of the complainant. He had purchased feed and medicines for the prawns to the tune of Rs. 39,55,731 which is a huge amount of money. Accordingly, the State Commission held that the transaction is out and out commercial transaction and purchase of feed and medicines is only for commercial purpose. Hence, the dispute cannot, be said to be consumer dispute.

The complainants have not produced any material which they allegedly sent to Anu Lab. He should have produced the same before the District Forum and the District Forum should have sent the report to the laboratory for analysis. The complainants had produced that there is no material to show that Anu Lab is a notified/certified by the Government authorities. They have also not filed any affidavit of Mr. Lee or Mr. Suresh. Even the reports did not say that the feed supplied were defective. Accordingly, the State Commission had allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint without cost. Findings:

THE revision petitioners have not submitted any record before us to say that cheques for a sum of Rs. 39,55,731 which was issued have been realized by the respondent. They have also not produced any record to prove that each complainant had made any payment directly to Dabur for the purchase of goods or service.

BARRING less important portions the extract of the legal notice issued allegedly on behalf of the complainants are reproduced below: "Under the instructions from my client M/s. Rajendra Enterprises, Pandillapalli, represented by site Proprietor A. Srinivasa Rao, I give you the following notice.

My client, his father, his brother and his brother -in -law are having 150 acres of aqua land. You asked my client to use the feed and only after good result my client can pay the amount. Because of your fraud played on my client, my client and his members of the family incurred a loss of Rs. 95,00,000. My client hereby demands you to pay Rs. 95,00,000 within one week from the date of receiving of this notice and also return the six blank cheques of my client bearing Nos. 1184409, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 1184415 with you of Pinakini Grameena Bank, Pandillapalli. If you fail to pay the amount within a week, my client will approach the Consumer Forum for deficiency of service and you also will be liable for cheating my client."

THIS legal notice was issued by M/s. Rajendra Enterprises, complainants have tried to convert this commercial transaction to a consumer complaint. The complainants have filed complaints giving individual names. They have also shown that Rajendra Enterprises are the real owners of 150 acres of acqua land and they have alleged to have lost Rs. 95 lakh, which is a huge sum of money which an ordinary consumer cannot incur.

THE State Commission has clearly analysed the case and come to the conclusion that there is no privity of contract between the revision petitioners other than Mr. A.S. Rao, proprietor of Rajendra Enterprises and Dabur, and also that this is a pure and simple commercial transaction and, therefore, the dispute does not come under the umbrella of consumer dispute.

WE do not want to reiterate the detailed reasons given by the State Commission while allowing the appeal of M/s. Dabur Ayurvet Ltd. Suffice to say that we concur fully with the findings of the State Commission, that these are not consumer disputes. These are pure and simple commercial transactions wherein cheques issued by the purchaser had bounced. As a counter -blast the purchaser and his close relatives have filed consumer complaints to camouflage the commercial transactions. Therefore, these revision petitions are dismissed.