Ram Pratap vs District Cane Officer

THIS appeal has been filed by Sri Ram Pratap, r/o Village Narainpur, Distt. Kusinagar against the judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum, Kusinagar on 23.3.2000 in Complaint Case No. 841 of 1999.

THE complainant who is the appellant also in this appeal, filed a claim before the District Consumer Forum concerned that he has been supplying sugarcane to the Sugar Mill of Bhatni, Distt. Deoria. THE sugarcane on his account was delivered to the Sugar Mill through his nephew Anirudh but the payment for the sugarcane supplied to the Mill has not been made to him and the said payment has been held by the opposite parties. THE complainant has, therefore, prayed before the Forum that the payment of the sugarcane price be made in his favour for the supply of sugarcane which was made through the above nephew Anirudh. THE opposite parties before the Forum are District Cane Officer, Deoria; Deputy Cane Commissioner, Deoria; Cooperative Sugarcane Development Society, Bhatni; and the Manager of Bhatni Sugar Mill. THE District Consumer Forum after hearing the parties, passed an order that the payment in respect of sugarcane supplied to the Mill should be made by the opposite parties to Anirudh and not to the complainant and in case the complainant feels that the sugarcane was his, he could approach the appropriate Civil Court for recovery from his nephew Anirudh. Aggrieved against the order of the learned District Forum, the complainant has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the District Forum.

In the memo of appeal, it has been stated that the learned District Forum has not appreciated the evidence on record and the provisions of Consumer Protection Act have been over-looked by the Forum. The respondent No. 4-the Sugar Mill concerned has not made the payment of Rs. 11,500/- to the appellant in spite of the orders of the Deputy Cane Commissioner. It has also been stated in the memo of appeal that Anirudh who is not a party in the complaint has filed an affidavit before the District Consumer Forum which was taken on record and the order was passed in his favour.

THE respondents, District Cane Officer, Deoria; Deputy Cane Commissioner; Deoria and Cooperative Sugarcane Development Society, Bhatni also filed their objections in which it has been stated that the appellant should have made Anirudh as a necessary party in this case. THE sugarcane which was supplied to the Mill was that of Anirudh and he is entitled to get the payment. THE slips for sugarcane supply issued by the Cane Society have been missing and the complainant is taking the advantage of it. THE appellant has asked the Cooperative Cane Society to stop the payment. THE payment is lying as unpaid and will be made by the Society after identifying the genuine slips holder. Before a decision could be taken the complainant has filed the claim before the District Forum. An affidavit was also filed by Sri Ram Shakal Yadav, Secretary of Cooperative Cane Society, Bhatni reiterating the facts contained in respondents'' objections. THE respondent No. 4 U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd., Bhatni has stated that the entire sugarcane price of the relevant time has been paid to the Society which is responsible for making payment to the person who is supplier of cane. Mr. Anirudh who had figured in the judgment and order of the District Consumer Forum has also moved an application to the effect that in this appeal he should have been made a necessary party and the appeal has been filed to harass him.

WE have heard Mr. S.K. Shukla for the appellant and Mr. Rama Shankar Kushwaha for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. WE have gone through the record of the case. On a scrutiny of the papers, we find that it is a case in which the supply of sugarcane to the Mill is involved. The normal practice is that the Sugar Mills place an indent of the cane to be crushed on daily basis on the Cooperative Cane Society. The Cooperative Cane Society in turn prepares a calendar consisting of the cane growers/suppliers. The Cane Society then issues slips to the growers to supply the cane to the factory. The factory makes the payment of cane to the Cooperative Cane Society which in turn makes the payment to the Cane Grower. This practice has the authority of law under Sugarcane Purchase and Supply Act. The cane grower cannot be considered to be a consumer who supplies cane to the sugar factory. On the other hand the consumer would be the Sugar Mill. WE, therefore, find that the case was not maintainable before the District Consumer Forum and the same should not have been entertained. Instead the District Forum went on to hear the case and instead of examining the claim of the complainant, provided relief to somebody else who was not a party in the case. A perusal of the judgment and order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum goes to show that the operative portion of the judgment is non-speaking. In the body of the judgment, the matter has been dealt with cursorily and instead of specifically rejecting or accepting the claim of the complainant, a third party not concerned with the case was ordered to be provided relief and the complainant was asked to recover the money from the third party in the appropriate Civil Court. The learned District Forum completely failed to understand that not only the complainant and the third party who was not a consumer but also failed to appreciate the procedure followed in regard to procurement of cane and payment thereof which is governed by a statute of Uttar Pradesh and is certainly not covered under the Consumer Protection Act. In the circumstances, the appeal is liable to be allowed and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Order The appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the District Consumer Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. Let copy be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal allowed. Complaint dismissed.