Krishna Murthy vs CHAMUNDESWARI SUGARS LTD

IN this complaint, under Section 12 r/w Section 17 of the C.P. Act, 1986, the complainant has sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 3,72,600/- from the Opposite Party-M/s. Chamundeswari Sugars Ltd.

IT is the case of the complainant that he entered into an agreement with the Opposite Party - Sugar Mills for his sugarcane crops for the year 1991-92. The complainant averred that the Opposite Party did not cut and carry away the crops in time as a result of which he had to incur much loss. It is the further case of the complainant that the agreement was to supply 150 M.Ts. of sugarcane to the Opposite Party. The complainant had grown 250 M.Ts. of sugarcane and the Opposite Party lifted only 35 M.Ts. of sugarcane and it failed to lift the balance quantity of sugarcane and consequently he sustained loss.

The complainant, at para 4 of the complaint, has averred, thus: "4. As the opponent violated the terms of the agreement with the complainant in not lifting the sugarcance plantation to the extent of their requirement of 150 (One hundred and fifty) metric tonnes, the sugarcance crop since it was left uncut, in the course of time got dried-up."

At para 5, he has further averred, thus: "5. It is further submitted that on account of disobedience and non-compliance of the terms of the agreement between the parties hereto, the complainant is made to suffer a loss of Rs. 50,600/- (Rupees fifty thousand six hundred only) being the cost of the sugarcance crop grown at the first instance and to meet the requirement of the opponent to an extent of 115 (one hundred and fifteen) metric tonnes of sugarcane and Rs. 66,000/- (rupees sixtysix thousand) being the loss suffered in not growing further 150 (one hundred and fifty) metric tonnes of sugarcane in the following season. In all, the complainant has suffered Rs. 1,16,600/- (Rupees one lakh sixteen thousand and six hundred) only."

The complainant on the basis of these averments, sought the compensation from the Opposite Party as referred above.

THE Opposite Party filed its version and averred that the complainant is not a ''consumer'' within the meaning of the C.P. Act. 1986. It further averred that it was the responsibility of the complainant to cut, remove and produce the sugarcane crops at the premises of the mill and the mill has nothing to do with the cutting and removing the sugarcane crop from the farm to the mill. Having regarded to these facts and in the circumstances of the case, we heard the learned Counsel for the parties on the point of maintainability of the complainant.

THE facts and the circumstances as averred in the complaint do show that it was purely in the realm of "breach of contract" and it did not constitute a ''consumer'' dispute as envisaged in the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act The Opposite Party has produced the copy of the agreement entered into between the parties. Paras 9 and 12 of the agreement, read as under: 9. xx xx xx 12. xx xx xx The near translation of the above, in English, is as under: "9. The grower has agreed to cut the top of the sugarcane, to separate the bottom, to file the surface, to separate the disease affected sugarcane grown in the schedule .land and to bring the sugarcane to the weigh bridge at Bharatinagar (K.M. Doddi) at the quantity prescribed by the company. 12. The company has got right and get use of the benefit that in case the company arranges for cutting the sugarcane from the land and transports to the company, to deduct the transportation charges prescribed by the company at that time from out of the amount of the sugarcane grown and transported by the grower. He has agreed to receive the payment within 14 days after the grower has supplied the full quantity of sugarcane and after production of sugarcane weight bills tickets along with connected certificates to the Accounts Department."

It is dear from the terms of the agreement that it is the responsibility of the complainant-grower to cut the sugarcane and to remove to the premises of the mill.

IN order to entitle a person to claim to be ''consumer'' under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986, he must have hired the services of the Opposite Party for consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. There is absolutely no material to show that the complainant had hired the services of the Opposite Party for any consideration. The agreement says that the complainant is the person who has to cut and produce the sugarcane at the premises of the mill. It is clear that the complainant has not hired the services of the mill, so the dispute raised by the complainant is not a ''consumer'' dispute at all. So the complaint is untenable. ORDER IN the result, therefore, this complaint fails and it is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear and pay their own costs in this proceeding. Complaint dismissed.