V.Jayaraman vs SPECIAL OFFICER, M/S. THIRUPATHUR CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 16.12.1998 in O.P. No. 185/1995 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vellore.

THE appellant is the complainant while the respondent is the opposite party. Short facts may be related in order to understand the crux of the issue arising for consideration.

The complainant, it is paid, paid a consideration of Rs. 300/- on 8.2.1994 to enroll him as a shareholder in the opposite party''s mill to market his sugercane with the mill together with the Village Administrative Officer''s Certificate, cane agreement and other necessary relevant records. He was not at all issued any receipt for the payment so effected. He had also made a complaint to the Chief Cane Officer through V.N. Subash on 3.6.1994. Thereafter, belatedly on 25.6.1994 he was given a receipt for share suspense account putting the date as 9.6.1994 for Rs. 205/- only. The balance amount of Rs. 95/- was not at all accounted for.

THE opposite party sugar mill did not at all issue the cutting order at the appropriate time and as a consequence the sugarcane he had cultivated became useless and he was further prevented from growing sugarcane for the next season. This act of the opposite party he would say would tantamount to deficiency in service on their part. In such a backdrop and setting, he knocked at the doors of the Forum below for certain reliefs as prayed for in the complaint.

THE opposite party sugar mill in pith and substance would contend as below : THE complainant did not pay Rs. 300/- on 8.2.1994 as consideration to the opposite party to enroll him as a sharer. He gave his share application dated 4.6.1994 and remitted only a sum of Rs. 205/- i.e., Rs. 200/- towards share allotment and Rs. 5/- towards entrance fee. For the amount so paid by him, the opposite party had issued a receipt on 9.6.1994. He was also admitted as a member and his member number being 23807. Share Certificate for Rs. 200/- was also issued to him as per the Committee Resolution dated 20.7.1994. The complainant did not sign in three places in the cane agreement particularly in the Form he has to convey his willingness to supply sugarcane. The agreement submitted by him as such was defective. Hence, there is no completed contract regarding supply of sugarcane by the complainant to the opposite party sugar mill. The complainant was not interested in supplying the sugarcane to the opposite party mill. The reason was that at the relevant point of time, the price of jaggery was high and therefore he was not interested in supplying the sugarcane to the mill. These things apart, the complainant cannot at all expect the issuance of a cutting order from the opposite party sugar mill without a concluded contract between the parties. As such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

THE Forum below after taking into consideration, the materials placed on record, dismissed the complaint without costs.

AGGRIEVED by the order as above, the complainant resorted to the present action by engaging a Counsel of his choice namely learned Counsel Mr. P.M. Bhaskaran appearing for the appellant/complainant would bristle to this. The complainant is not a seller of sugarcane to the opposite party sugar mill. His duty was to maintain the sugarcane grown in his land till upto the issuance of the cutting order by the opposite party sugar mill. He hired the services of the opposite party sugar mill for consideration. Therefore, the complainant should be construed as a consumer. Due to the non-issuance of the cutting order by the opposite party sugar mill, the entirety of the sugarcane in his lands were completely destroyed. Therefore, the opposite party sugar mill is liable to compensate for the loss he had sustained. These aspects of the matter, he would say, the Forum below had not at all taken into consideration while dismissing the complaint. Learned Counsel Mr. P. Mani appearing for the respondent/opposite party sugar mill would however strike a discordant not to the projection of hues as aired by learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant. He would elaborate by saying that the complainant being an agriculturist and having sugarcane crop in the reserved area besides entering into an agreement with the opposite party to supply the sugarcane at the specified price cannot at all be construed as a consumer. He is after all a seller of sugarcane to the opposite party. What is further submitted by him is that even assuming for arguments sake that there is a concluded contract between the complainant and the opposite party sugar mill, the complainant is not entitled to any relief as he has prayed for in the complaint on the simplictor ground of his being not construed as a consumer. The dismissal of the complaint, he would therefore, say is not liable to be set aside in such circumstances.

The projection of hues of views as aired by learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties may now fall in the arena of consideration.

THE cultivation of sugarcane in a reserved area is completely governed by the provisions of Tamil Nadu Sugar Factories Control Act 20 of 1949 (for short, "Act 20 of 1949"). Once permission is granted for the commissioning of the sugar mill, the reserved area is created for the supply of sugarcane to the sugar mill. THE sugarcane cultivated in the area cannot be sold or supplied to any other mill other than the mill located in the reserved area. THE complainant having cultivated the sugarcane in the area in which the opposite party mill is located is bound to supply the sugarcane only to the opposite party sugar mill. That perhaps was the reason he entered into agreement under Ex. B5 with the opposite party sugar mill for the supply of the sugarcane he had cultivated to them. It is not as if the supply of the sugarcane is effected freely to the sugar mill and the plain fact is that he agreed to supply the sugarcane at a specified price to the mill. From a perusal of the conditions of the agreement entered into between the parties, it is crystal clear that if there is any loan granted to the complainant by the opposite party sugar mill or by any other co-operative society enabling him to cultivate the sugarcane the loan so granted to him will be deducted from the sale price of the sugarcane supplied to the mill and the balance alone will be granted to him. From this, it is crystal clear that the complainant being a cultivator of the sugarcane, sold the sugarcane to the opposite party sugar mill at a specified rate per ton. Thus, he becomes a seller of the sugarcane to the opposite party sugar mill. THErefore, the contention as urged by learned Counsel Mr. P.M. Bhaskaran appearing for the appellant/complainant that the complainant is not selling the sugarcane to the opposite party sugar mill cannot at all expect acceptance at our hands. The other argument he had projected that the complainant''s duty was only to nurture and maintain the sugarcane only during the crop period and the sugarcane so cultivated absolutely belong to the sugar mill cannot at all be countenanced on the facts and in the circumstances of the case when especially the totality of the conditions as incorporated in the agreement under Ex. B5 are taken into consideration. Even the other argument that the complainant availed of or hired the services of the opposite party for consideration has to be rejected outright and out. Though such an argument has been raised by the said learned Counsel, he was unable to substantiate the same by saying what sort of a service he had availed of or hired from the opposite party sugar mill and that apart he was unable to point out the consideration the complainant had ever agreed to pay for hiring or availing of services from the opposite party sugar mill. Such sort of a contention had been taken for contention sake in order to make the complainant come within the grove of definition of ''consumer'' and nothing further.

PERTINENT it is to refer at this juncture the decision emerging from the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of Purna Sahakari Shakar Karkhanna Pravheni v. Tatyarao Ramarao Kate Parvheni, II (1994) CPJ 107 (NC). The order rendered by the National Commission in the said case is so crisp and short and therefore it is the order as a whole may be reproduced here and it runs as under : ORDER Mr. Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi, President : "Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner, Shri T. Raja, is well founded in his contention that the grievance put forward by the complainant before the District Forum was not a consumer dispute at all as defined in the Act. There was no arrangement of biring of service for consideration as between the respondent and petitioner Society. The mere fact that the petitioner Society had assured the respondent that they would purchase for their factory the sugarcane crop grown by the respondent on his lands does not make the respondent a consumer as defined in the Act and the complaint preferred by him on the ground of failure on the part of the Society in honouring their promise cannot be regarded as consumer dispute. The orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum are wholly without jurisdiction. They are hereby set aside and the complaint petition is dismissed. The revision petition is allowed as above. No costs."

The decision of the National Commission as above is applicable in all fours to the facts of the present case. For the reasons as above, we are of the view that the complainant sugarcane grower cannot at all be construed as a consumer falling within the definition of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, "the Act"). The appeal as such deserves to be dismissed.

IN fine, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. We make no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. It is however open to the complainant/sugarcane grower to knock at the door of the appropriate Civil Forum for reliefs if he is so advised. Appeal dismissed.