KARNATAKA VYAVASAYA VARTHAKA SANGHA vs B.KRISHNA RAI

THIS appeal, by the opposite party, is directed against the order dated 25.11.1992, passed by the District Forum, D.K. District, Mangalore, in complaint No.DK.DF/CC/159/91-92,directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 53,820.09 with interest thereon to the complainant. 2.The undisputed facts are that the complainant is an agriculturist and the opposite party is a Commission Agent engaged in the business of sale of agricultural produce. 3.The complainant used to take his agricultural produce to the opposite party for sale, who in turn, used to get the said agricultural produce sold on profitable margin and collect commission for the service rendered by him. The opposite party had also issued a pass book to the complainant and as per the entries in the said pass book, the opposite party was due to the complainant in a sum of Rs. 53,820.09 as on 22.10.1990. As the opposite party did not pay the said sum to the complainant even on several demands, the complainant sought recovery of the said amount with interest thereon and compensation from the opposite party. 4. The opposite party filed its version and admitted the claim of the complainant. The averments at para 8 of the objection statement read as under: "The claim of the complainant except to the extent of interest and damage is admitted. THIS respondent has not denied the liability."

The opposite party further averred that it could not make the payment of the said amount to the complainant as it had suffered heavy loss. 5. The opposite party nextly averred that the District Forum, D.K District, Mangalore, had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 6. The opposite party, on the basis of these averments, sought the complaint to be dismissed. 7.The District Forum, D.K. District, Mangalore, heard the parties and held that the complainant is a "consumer" under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the complaint was tenable and in that view directed the opposite party to pay the amount due to the complainant with interest thereon. 8.We have called for the records and received. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 9.It is clear from the material on record that the opposite party collects commission for getting the agricultural produce brought by the complainant marketed in the market. The service that the O.P. renders by making sale of the agricultural produce in the open market gets commission for the said service. Therefore, it is clear that the services of the opposite party are hired for consideration. 10. The learned Counsel for the opposite party relied on certain provisions of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 and submitted that the commission is not paid by the complainant but by the buyer of the produce and so the complainant cannot be classified as a "consumer". 11. The opposite party, for rendering the service of marketing the goods, collects commission. It is due to the fact that the complainant brings his produce to the opposite party for marketing, which facilitates the opposite party to make sale of the produce and collect commission from the amount recovered on the sale of the goods entrusted to him. 12. Having regard to these facts, it is clear that the complainant is a "consumer" under the provisions of the C.P Act. That is the finding recorded by the District Forum, D.K. District, Mangalore, we do not find any ground to interfere in this finding recorded by the District Forum. 13. As referred above, the opposite party has admitted that the amount recovered by the opposite party by the sale of arecenut entrusted by the complainant, was not paid by him to the complainant. 14. Having regard to this fact the opposite party was directed by the District Forum, D.K. Dist. Mangalore, to pay the said amount to the complainant with interest. 15. Having regard to the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the order recorded by the District Forum, D.K. Dist. Mangalore. There are absolutely no good grounds to interfere in the order recorded by the District Forum. ORDER In the result, therefore, this appeal fails and it is dismissed. The appellant shall pay a sum of Rs.250/- (Rupees two hundred and fifty only) towards the costs in this appeal to the respondent. Appeal dismissed with costs.