CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions(1993) 03 NCDRC CK 0041

KONAPALLE NARASIMHLU NAIDU-/ vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE CHITTOOR CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORY-/

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 17 March 1993 · Citation: 1993 2 CPJ 1068 : 1993 2 CPR 19

HON’BLE JUDGES
A.Venkatarami Reddy , Pothuri Venkateswara Rao , J.Ananda Lakshmi J.
RESULT
Appeal dismissed
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 362 words
1.

THE complainant, is the appellant in this appeal. THE case of the complainant is that he holds ten shares in the respondent-Co-operative Sugar Factory. THEre was default in supply of the cane and hence certain penalty was imposed on the complainant by the society. THE Society wanted to deduct the amount of penalty out of the price of the cane supplied by the complainant. THE grievance of the complainant is that he submitted an explanation and without considering the same, the Society has imposed penalty and is seeking to adjust the said amount from out of the price of the sugar cane supplied by him. But the penalty amount, has been imposed under Bye-law 33A of the Society, which empowers the Society to impose a penalty for non-supplying the cane of eight tonnes per each share. Bye-law 34 of the Act empowers that if any member fails to supply sugarcane without valid reason, shall in addition to any other appropriate action taken against him, be fined at the rate of Rs. 5/- for each of the metric ton supplied by him for the first default and at Rs. 10/- for the second default and at Rs. 20/- for the third default. On the fourth time, if the member further defaults, he shall be converted into a non-supply member. All the fines so imposed shall be recoverable as debts due to the society from the cane bill.

2.

IN view of these bye-laws, the respondent imposed the penalty and is seeking to adjust the same. Evidently, the nature of the dispute raised by the complainant whether the society can impose penalty without any reason or whether the same can be adjusted from out of the cane price payable to the complainant, are matters beyond the purview of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, the District Forum rightly rejected the complaint as not maintainable. If the complainant is aggrieved by the action of the society, it is open to the complainant to seek appropriate remedies open to him under law i.e. under the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act or any other Civil Court. The appeal is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.