State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Sericulture Department, State Of ... vs Tara Chand on 7 October, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 214 / 2011
1. The Sericulture Department
State of Uttarakhand through
Sh. Arvind Pandey S/o Not known
R/o Pathri, District Haridwar
Presently posted as Inspector, Sericulture Department
Pathri, District Haridwar
2. Chief Development Officer
District Haridwar
3. Sh. Arvind Pandey
Inspector, Sericulture
Pathri, Haridwar
......Appellants / Opposite Parties
Versus
Sh. Tara Chand S/o Sh. Khushal Singh
R/o Village Ibrahimpur Dandi
P.S. Pathri, District Haridwar
......Respondent / Complainant
Sh. Ashok Dimri, Learned Counsel for the Appellants
None for Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
Mr. D.K. Tyagi, H.J.S., Member
Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member
Dated: 07/10/2014
ORDER
(Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President):
This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 20.09.2011 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 420 of 2010. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellants - opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the respondent - complainant.2
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant had carried out sericulture plantation under a scheme floated by the State of Uttarakhand, wherein he was to be given financial assistance for construction of a house after a period of four years from the date of plantation. It was alleged that the complainant had carried out plantation in the year 2006 and had planted 500 plants of mulberry ("kgrwr) and after a period of four years, the Sericulture Department was to pay a sum of Rs. 45,000/- per 100 trees of mulberry. The complainant issued several letters to the opposite party No. 1 for payment of the amount, but to no avail. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar.
3. The appellants filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the said scheme was floated by the Govt. of Uttarakhand for providing self-employment to the farmers; that the Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction in the matter; that the complainant does not fall under the definition of "consumer" as provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; that the complainant had planted 100 plants of mulberry in 2007; that the complainant had also planted the plants of poplar after planting mulberry plants and, as such, he was not entitled to any amount; that the Committee did not find the complainant eligible for payment and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.
4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 20.09.2011 in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have filed the present appeal.
35. None appeared on behalf of respondent - complainant. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and have also perused the record.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the complainant does not fall under the definition of "consumer" as provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the District Forum has erred in entertaining the consumer complaint and allowing the same per impugned order against the appellants.
7. The complainant has himself stated in para 2 of the consumer complaint that the Govt. of Uttarakhand had carved out a scheme wherein he was to be provided financial assistance for construction of house after a period of four years from the date of plantation of mulberry plants. Thus, the complainant has not availed any services of the appellants for hire or otherwise and has not paid any consideration to the appellants. Since the complainant has not hired or availed any services of the appellants for consideration paid or promised or otherwise and hence he can not be termed as "consumer" as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant has also stated in his consumer complaint that under the relevant scheme, he was to be provided financial assistance for construction of house, but the complainant has not passed any consideration to the appellant and has not hired their services. The appellants have specifically pleaded in their written statement that the complainant does not fall under the definition of "consumer", but the District Forum did not deal with the said important plea raised by the appellants, which goes to the root of the matter and did not record any finding with regard thereto.
48. Since the complainant does not fall under the definition of "consumer" and hence he was not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora and to file a consumer complaint before the Consumer Fora and his consumer complaint was not at all maintainable before the District Forum and the District Forum has erred in entertaining the consumer complaint and allowing the same vide impugned order, which can not be legally be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Resultantly, the appeal is fit to be allowed.
9. This apart, the appellants have specifically pleaded in their written statement that the complainant had also planted the plants of poplar after planting mulberry plants and hence he was not entitled to any amount and the Committee did not find the complainant eligible for payment of the amount. The complainant has not filed any evidence to discard the said plea of the appellants and to show that he has not planted the plants of poplar or has not done anything in contravention of the scheme. The complainant has also not adduced any evidence to show that he was wrongly deprived by the appellants from the incentive under the scheme. The District Forum has also not recorded any sound finding with regard to the said plea raised by the appellants and has only stated that it is not proved that the plants of poplar could not be planted along with the plants of mulberry. When the scheme was carved for plantation of mulberry plants, there was no justification on the part of the complainant to plant poplar plants along with the same. The District Forum has also not properly considered this important aspect of the matter and has wrongly held that the appellants have committed deficiency in service and they are liable to pay compensation to the complainant. The facts on record show that there has not been any deficiency in service on the part of the appellatns and the view to the contrary taken by the District Forum 5 can not be said to be justified in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
10. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is allowed. Order impugned dated 20.09.2011 passed by the District Forum is set aside and consumer complaint No. 420 of 2010 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(SMT. VEENA SHARMA) (D.K. TYAGI) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL) K