State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri Nitin Jairam Gadkari vs Balkrishna Vasantrao Tandon on 23 February, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA NAGPUR CIRCUIT BENCH NAGPUR First Appeal No. A/11/71 (Arisen out of Order Dated 05/01/2011 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/10/6 of District State Commission) 1. SHRI NITIN JAIRAM GADKARI KHADI GARMODYAG BHAWAN MAHAL NAGPUR NAGPUR MAHARASHTAR 2. SHRI SUDHIR WAMANRAO DIVE KHADI GRAMODYOG BHAWAN MAHAL NAGPUR NAGPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. BALKRISHNA VASANTRAO TANDON KOTANO POST GOWARI TAH. MOUDA NAGPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/11/72 (Arisen out of Order Dated 05/01/2011 in Case No. CC/10/61 of District State Commission) 1. SHRI SUDHIR WAMANRAO DIVE KHADI GRAMODYOG BHAWAN NAHAL NAPUR NAGPUR MAHARASHTRA 2. SHRI JAIKUMAR VARMA KHADI GRAMODYAG BHAWAN MAHAL NAGPUR NAGPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. SANTOSH DASHRATH TANDON KOTAON POST GOWARI TAH MOUDA NAGPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/11/73 (Arisen out of Order Dated 05/01/2011 in Case No. CC/10/107 of District State Commission) 1. SHRI NITIN JAIRAM GADKARI KHADI GRAMODYOG BHAWAN MAHAL NAGPUR NAGPUR MAHARASHTRA 2. SHRI SUDHIR WAMANRAO DIVE KHADI GRAMODYOG BHAWAN NAGPUR NAGPUR MAHARSHTRA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. VIJAY WASUDEO LANJEWAR KOTAON POST GOWARI TAH. MOUDA NAGPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/11/74 (Arisen out of Order Dated 05/01/2011 in Case No. CC/10/62 of District State Commission) 1. SHRI. SUDHIRS/O. WAMANRAO DIVE THE MANAGING DIRECTOR PURTI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED OFFICE AT KHADI GRAMODYOG BHAWAN, MAHAL, NAGPUR. NAGPUR NAGPUR. MAHARASHTRA 2. SHRI JAIKUMAR VARMA THE VICE-PRESIDENT, PURTI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED OFFICE AT KHADI GRAMODYOG BHAWAN, MAHA, NAGPUR.L NAGPUR. MAHARASHTRA. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. SHRIRAM MAHADEOJI TAOKAR R/O. KOTAON, POST GOWARI, TAH. MOUDA, DISTT. NAGPUR. NAGPUR. MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/11/75 (Arisen out of Order Dated 05/01/2011 in Case No. CC/10/67 of District State Commission) 1. SHRI. SUDHIR S/O. WAMANRAO DIVE THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, PURTI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED, OFFICE AT KHADI GRAMODYOG BHAWAN, MAHAL, NAGPUR. NAGPUR. MAHARASHTRA. 2. SHRI. JAIKUMAR VARMA THE VICE-PRESIDENT, PURTI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED, OFFICE AT KHADI GRAMODYOG BHAWAN, MAHAL, NAGPUR. NAGPUR. MAHARASHTRA. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. WASIDEO S/O. JAGAN RANGARI R/O. KOTAON, POST. GOWARI, TAH. MOUDA, DIST., NAGPUR. NAGPUR. MAHARASHTRA. ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/11/76 (Arisen out of Order Dated 05/01/2011 in Case No. CC/10/108 of District State Commission) 1. SHRI NITIN S/O. JAIRAM GADKARI THE PRESIDENT, PURTI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED, OFFICE AT KHADI GRAMODYOG BHAWAN, MAHAL, NAGPUR. NAGPUR. MAHARASHTRA 2. SHSRI. SUDHIR S/O. WAMANRAO DIVE THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, PURTI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED, OFFICE AT KHADI GRAMODYOG BHAWAN, MAHAL, NAGPUR. NAGPUR. MAAHARASHTRA. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. KISAN S/O. BAKARAM LANJEWAR R/O. KOTAON, POST GOWARI, TAH.MOUDA, DIST., NAGPUR. NAGPUR. MAHARASHTRA. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.P.BHANGALE PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. B.A.SHAIKH JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Dated : 23 Feb 2017 Final Order / Judgement (Delivered on 23/02/2017) PER MR. JUSTICE A.P.BHANGALE, HON'BLE PRESIDENT. Common Judgement 1.
These appeals are preferred by original Opposite parties against the Judgement and award dated 05.01.2011 passed by learned Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur by which the complaints filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 were partly allowed and the compensation was granted as indicated in details of the tabular format of the impugned award passed in respect of the Consumer Complaint number 6 of 2010, 61 and 62 of 2010, 67 of 2010, 107 and 108 of 2010. Compensation awarded was payable with interest at the rate of 9% per annum within 30 days and in default at the rate of enhanced rate of interest of 12% per annum
2. Facts briefly stated are:-
The complainants along with their family members were cultivating sugarcane crop in their irrigated land respectively pursuant to the Brochure published by the sugarcane Factory known as" Poorti Sugar Factory Limited, Khursapar(Bela), Taluka Umred, District Nagpur. Cultivators were called upon to grow sugarcane crop in their irrigated lands . According to the Complainants acting upon the publication of the Brochure encouraging the sugarcane cultivation they had started cultivating the sugarcane crop. But as publicly assured in the pamphlet published the sugarcane crop was not cut for harvesting by the Sugar Factory at appropriate time. As a result of delay, the complainants contended that they had suffered losses for loss of weight of the dried crop and rate was paid at less price of Rs.700/- only per ton instead of Rs.1,000/- per ton as publicly assured in the Brochure published by the appellants (OP) .
3. Complainants had demanded the assured price but there was no early response from the Opposite Party and belated response when given was unsatisfactory. Complainants demanded the reimbursement of expenses towards hiring Trucks, labour, mental anguish and physical harassment for not receiving the appropriate price due to delay in harvesting and cutting the crop of sugarcane and consequent loss of weight in the produce.
4. The undisputed fact is that the Cultivators had cultivated sugarcane crop and that the Opposite party had bought the sugar cane Crop from the Complainants. The seedling of sugarcane were provided to the Complainants by the OPs and price was to be deducted from the price of the sugarcane crop payable to the cultivators who agreed to grow the sugarcane crops.
5. The main defence of the OPs was that the Complainants are not 'Consumers' within the meaning of Section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the ground that the complainants were not provided with any service and did not indulged in unfair trade practice.
6. According to OP the complainants had sown the sugarcane seedlings during the period of 09 March to 15 March 2007 sugarcane crop becomes mature and ripe for cutting and harvestable after 12 to 13 months from the implanting it. OPs had cut the crop during 26 March to 24 May 2008 after it became mature in April 2008 to May 2008. Schedule observed for cutting and harvesting was appropriate at the rate of Rs. 811.80 per metric ton harvesting season for the year 2010. The rate was inclusive of original price +Cutting charges +Transporting costs as approved by the Government for cutting and carrying the crop and without any default. The OPs specifically disowned responsibility of the cultivators for the repayment of loan.
7. In our view in view of the ruling in M/s National Seeds Corporation Ltd Vs. Vs M Madhusudan Reddy reported in AIR 2012 SC 1160 Para 33 "33. What needs to be emphasized is that the appellant had selected a set of farmers in the area for growing seeds on its behalf. After entering into agreements with the selected farmers, the appellant supplied foundation seeds to them for a price, with an assurance that within few months they will be able to earn profit. The seeds sown under the supervision of the expert deputed by the appellant. The entire crop was to be purchased by the appellant. The agreements entered into between the appellant and the growers clearly postulated supply of the foundation seeds by the appellant with an assurance that the crop will be purchased by it. It is neither the pleaded case of the appellant nor any evidence was produced before any of the Consumer Forums that the growers had the freedom to sell the seeds in the open market or to any person other than the appellant. Therefore, it is not possible to take the view that the growers had purchased the seeds for resale or for any commercial purpose and they are excluded from the definition of the term `consumer'. As a matter of fact, the evidence brought on record shows that the growers had agreed to produce seeds on behalf of the appellant for the purpose of earning their livelihood by using their skills and labour."
The ruling cited is attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. When the Sugar Factory concerned by its detailed pamphlet mentioning the aims and object of the Factory to undertake various projects connected with the sugarcane produce in the area of Vidarbha offered certain attractive rate of Rs.1000/- per Ton for the benefits of the Sugarcane growers/Farmers and encouraging the Farmers to undertake cultivation of the sugarcane produce, and Farmers having acted upon such written promises made publicly by means of Pamphlets circulated to Farmers, producing the crop of sugarcane in their irrigated lands were entitled to get the promised rates from the sugar Factory concerned. The farmers /growers of sugarcane in the facts and circumstances of the case were Consumers within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Complainants were entitled to insist upon the Sugar Factory concerned to act upon as service provider for to cut, harvest and accept the sugar cane crops at the promised rate of Rs.1,000/- as publicly assured in the pamphlet published by the Appellants.
8. We find that the learned District Forum rightly considered the claim made by the complainants / Farmers/sugarcane growers who cultivated the sugarcane acting upon the publication from the Poorti Sugar Factory Limited for to allow the Claim. No case is made out to quash and set aside the impugned judgement and award. Appeals are dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to and shared by the Complainants as the appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by Common Judgement. The amounts deposited by the appellants shall be allowed to be withdrawn by each of the Respondent Complainant concerned for to be appropriated toward the compliance of the Award. All questions relating to execution, discharge and satisfaction of the award shall be determined by Learned District Forum who passed the Award.
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.P.BHANGALE] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. B.A.SHAIKH] JUDICIAL MEMBER