SAHKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI vs RAMJIYAWAN DUBEY

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 31.8.1992 passed by District Consumer Forum, Gorakhpur in Complaint Case No. 129/1992.

BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that Sri Ramjiyawan Dubey is an agriculturist and grows cane crops every year and supplies cane to the Sardarnagar Sugar Factory. He is a member of the Cooperative Cane Marketing Society of Sardarnagar. As per orders of the Government, the cane grown by every grower is surveyed by Cane Supervisors and on the basis of the quantity of cane produced the supply slips are issued to the growers according to a fixed calendar so that the growers can supply the cane to the sugar factory at various intervals as per the calendar so fixed. The complainant was not issued supply slip in respect of the cane grown by him in acres of land in village Rasoolpur. The failure of the Cane Society, opposite party, in not issuing the supply slip of cane resulted into loss to the complainant as he could not supply the cane to the Sugar Factory. The cane got dried up and he was put to a loss of Rs. 8,000/-. He had been representing to the officers of the Cane Society, the opposite party and had to incur a sum of Rs. 500/- as travelling charges. He, therefore, lodged a claim before the District Consumer Forum for recovery of Rs. 8,500/- as loss incurred as a result of non-supply of cane, Rs. 500/- as the expenses towards travelling and Rs. 1,500/- as compensation for mental and physical torture. The opposite party in the written version before the District Consumer Forum contended that as per orders of the Government, at the start of the crushing season, the Cane Supervisor surveys the cane area and submits the statement of cane grown by each of the cane growers to the Senior Cane Development Inspector and thereafter a final statement is prepared on the basis of which the cane supply entitlement of each grower to the factory is notified which is known as "Satta". The objections are invited against this notification and after hearing objections the ''Satta'' is finalized. Since the complainant did not grow any cane in the crushing season 1991-92, therefore, he did not become entitled to supply cane for the coming crushing season nor did he prefer his objection against the notified "Satta". Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any relief and since he is not a consumer in this case the complaint is not maintainable before the District Forum.

Opposite parties 4 and 5 in their written version also stated that the complainant is not a cane grower and had not grown cane in the reserved area of the Sugar Factory.

THE District Consumer Forum, after hearing both the parties, came to the conclusion that the complainant, as per the details entered in the ''Khasra'' of 1398 Fasli had grown cane during the crushing season and he should have been given supply slips by the opposite parties which resulted into loss to the complainant. THE District Consumer Forum decreed the complaint by awarding Rs. 700/- to the complainant as loss incurred by him. Aggrieved of the order of the learned District Consumer Forum, the opposite party Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti, Sardarnagar has come in this appeal.

NOTICES were issued to both the parties on 18.9.2001 for the date fixed which was 23.11.2001. As the notices have not come back unserved hence the service was presumed sufficient on both the parties. None was present at the time of hearing. We, therefore, propose to decide the case on the basis of the records available on the appeal file. A perusal of the record goes to show that the complainant is a member of the Cooperative Cane Society, Sardarnagar. The Cooperative Cane Society determines the quantum of cane to be supplied by each cane grower to the factory according to the growing capacity. The supply of the cane to the factory is regulated by the Cane Society by issuing supply slips to each grower so the specific quantity to be crushed by the factory is supplied to the factory. The factory then determines the cost of the cane to be paid to each grower and the money to be paid to each grower is routed through the Cane Society. The case of the complainant is that he had grown cane but the opposite parties failed to take his cane or to give him supply slips so that the cane grown by him could have been crushed in the factory and he has been deprived of the remunerative price. In the entire process the cane grower would not have to pay any consideration to the Cooperative Cane Society and he cannot be called to be a consumer of the Society. On the other hand the Cooperative Society and more so the Sugar Factory are the consumers and not the grower. It has nowhere been seen from the records available that the complainant had paid any consideration to the Cooperative Society. The mere fact that the complainant was a member of the Cooperative Cane Society does not entitle him to get any compensation for non-supply of cane. A perusal of the copy of the Circular issued by the Cane Commissioner of U.P. lays down the policy for supply of cane for the crushing season 1992-93. The said Circular specifically lays down that the supply of cane grown in the crushing season 1992-93 will be determined on the basis of the cane grown during the previous crushing season of 1991-92. The pass book available on the appeal file does not indicate any cane grown by the complainant in the crushing season 1991-92. Therefore, in any case the opposite parties have not been deficient in their service. Therefore, even if the complainant is a member of the Cooperative Society and has paid membership fee for the same, does not entitle him to become a consumer and he had not grown cane during the crushing season 1991-92 and was not entitled to supply cane during the crushing season 1992-93 nor there is any evidence to prove that he had lodged an objection before the appropriate authorities of the local Cane Department of the State Government to include his name in the list of suppliers. Therefore, deficiency of service is not proved against any one of the opposite parties. In view of the above discussions, the District Consumer Forum has erred in entertaining the complaint and holding the complainant to be a consumer. The appeal is liable to be allowed and the judgment and order of the District Consumer Forum are liable to be set aside. ORDER The appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are set aside and the complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to the costs. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal allowed.