FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PROJECT, NEW DELHI vs N.SANKAR REDDY

THIS is a Revision Petition against the order of 9th November, 1993 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in C.D.R.P. No. 40 of 1993. The relevant facts of the case are that the Revision Petitioner herein is M/s. National Dairy Development Project, which is a body corporate constituted by an Act of Parliament. It has set up a pilot project called "M/s. Fruit & Vegetable Project" which purchases fruits/ vegetables on its own account directly from the farmers, farmers'' associations and farmers'' cooperative societies all over the country and to sell the same to consumers through its own retail outlets in Delhi/New Delhi/NOIDA.

THE revision petitioner purchased sweet lime and lemon from Shri N.Sankar Reddy, Horticulturist and who was the complainant before the District Forum, Ananthapur, Andhra Pradesh. The revision petitioner purchaser had laid down standard specifications, regarding the quality and packaging for the supply of sweet lime and lemon. A consignment of sweet lime and lemon was received from the supplier on 3rd May, 1991 but the revision petitioner did not find the quality of the sweet lime and lemon and the packing to be in conformity with the prescribed specifications. According to the revision petitioner, there was deficiency in the quality and packaging. As such the supply was rejected.

AS the commodity was perishable, the return of the consignment to Ananthapur was likely to cause total loss. Therefore, the respondent complainant, who had supplied the goods, requested the revision petitioner for help in disposing of the rejected consignment. The revision petitioner undertook to dispose of and arrange to sell the consignment through an authorised commission agent in the Azadpur Mandi, Delhi. He arranged to sell the consignment for Rs. 40,864/-.

ACCORDING to the complainant, he had not received the full amount due to him from the revision petitioner. Only a sum of Rs. 23,067/-(Rs. 5,000/- as cash and Rs. 18,067/- by cheque) was paid to him after the Commission Agent deducted Rs. 15,380/- as lorry freight and Rs. 1,680/- as Commission charges; Rs. 51/- was charged by the Revision Petitioner by way of actual expenses incurred by him. The Distinct Forum held that the consignment sent by the complainant was for sale to be made by the Opposite Party revision petitioner. According to the District Forum, the goods had been purchased by the 1st Opposite Party (M/s. Fruit and Vegetable Project) and therefore, the complainant was a ''consumer''. The State Commission held that the complainant supplied ''oranges'' and the Opposite Party agreed to pay the amount due to him towards consideration for selling the ''oranges'' in the market and that after the sale of the commodity, the revision petitioner has not remitted the amount due under the agreement to the complainant. It, therefore, held that there was a deficiency to service on the part of the Opposite Party in so far it has not chosen to send the money to the complainant, as agreed upon.

THE question that came to be considered in this case by the lower Forums was whether the revision petitioner M/s. Fruit and Vegetable Project, New Delhi rendered any service to the respondent complainant for a consideration?

IT is evident from the facts stated above that the revision petitioner M/s. Fruit and Vegetable Project had rejected the particular consignment received on 3rd of May, 1991. In other words, it had not purchased this consignment. When it undertook at the request of the complainant supplier, to arrange for its disposal, it was acting only as an agent of the supplier and was not disposing of the consignment as the purchaser and owner of the same. Consequently, no complaint on account of this transaction can be maintained before a Consumer Forum against the revision petitioner. It may also be worthwhile to examine the status in this transaction of the revision petitioner"M/s. Fruit and Vegetable Project. Even if it is presumed that it had purchased the goods in terms of an agreement between the parties, a purchaser alone can be a ''consumer'' and the seller can never assume the status of a ''consumer''. In this case, the seller was a farmer of Ananthpur and M/s. Fruit and Vegetable Project, New Delhi could be deemed to be the purchaser. It is most surprising that the District Forum has ignored the essential feature as to who is a ''consumer'' while adjudicating this case.

IT is equally surprising that the State Commission has held that the Revision Petitioner had undertaken to render a service for consideration after rejecting the consignment and agreeing to assist in the sale of the rejected consignment. It has overlooked the essential fact that the Revision Petitioner had undertaken to get the consignement disposed of to minimise the loss that would have occurred if the rejected consignment had been returned to Ananthapur. In any case, no consideration had been received by the Revision Petitioner for rendering this service.

FOR the foregoing reasons, the revision petition is allowed and the orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission are set aside. There is no order as to costs.