State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Nature Balance Samajik Wanikaran ... vs Shri. Bhagwat Tukdu Dhake on 21 January, 2009
1 F.A. No..: 1918-04
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSASL COMMISSION,
MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
Date of filing : 25.10.2004
Date of Order : 21.01.2009
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1918 OF 2004
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. 2234 OF 2004
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: JALGAON.
Nature Balance Samajik Wanikaran
Sahkari Sanstha,
Maryadit Salve Tal.Dharangaon,
Dist. Jalgaon. ... Appellant
VERSUS
Shri. Bhagwat Tukdu Dhake
R/o. Opp. Maharanapratap High School,
Jamner Road, Bhusawal,
Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon. ... Respondent
Coram : Shri.S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Judicial Member.
Mrs. Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Present: Adv. Shri. V.N. Devare, appeared for appellant.
Adv. Shri. Jayant Chitnis, appeared for respondent.
:: ORAL ORDER ::
Per Shri S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member
1. The present appeal is filed by the Nature Balance Samajik Wanikaran Shkari Sanshta, Maryadit, the original opponent No.1 against the judgment and order dated 28.09.2004 in complaint case No.224/2004 passed by Dist. Consumer Forum, Jalgaon.2 F.A. No..: 1918-04
2. The respondent/complainant's case before the Forum is that Gat No. 354, 1 hectors 64 R of village Waradsim Tal. Bhusawal is owned by complainant's brother Raghunath Tukadu Dhake who is suffering from paralysis and thus he can not walk and move. The family of complainant and his brother is joint family. It is contended that the complainant had purchased 1100 plant of Aloe from appellant society in pursuance to the advertisement. He planted those in his field admeasuring 62 R of Gat No.354. It is contended that, the agreement was executed by him and appellant society in which the appellant society had given guarantee to sale out the yield of Aloe plant and assured minimum price of Rs.2500/-
per Ton. It is contended that the appellant took 164.30 tons of aloe crop of worth Rs.4,10,750/- from the complainant. But, did not pay the price of the crop though the several communications were made by complainant, thus he approached the Forum.
3. The present appellant appeared before the Forum and resisted the claim. The appellant is not at dispute that the complainant had purchased Aloe plants from the society. According to appellant the complainant sold out the crop in the market as the price in the market was more than assured. It is also contended that the complainant is not a consumer of appellant society. They have denied the execution of any document in favour of the complainant. They denied the contention that they have taken the crop as alleged by the complainant.
4. The Forum below after gong through the papers and hearing the parties directed appellant to pay Rs.4,10,750/- with the interest @ 6% 3 F.A. No..: 1918-04 p.a. from 01.12.2003. Forum also directed the appellant to pay the amount of Rs.2,000/- towards the cost.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order Nature Balance Samajik Vanikaran Sahakari Sanstha came in appeal.
6. Notices were issued to the appellant as well as the respondent. Learned counsel Shri. V.N. Devare, appeared on behalf of appellant and Shri. Jayant Chitnis, appeared for respondent. We heard both the counsels at sufficient length. The learned counsel Shri. Devare for appellant tried to submit that the land in question is in the name of complainant's brother and complainant has no locus standy to file complaint. He further submitted that the complainant can not be said to be consumer under Consumer Protection, Act. According to him the status to the complainant would be that of seller as the appellant was to purchase the same. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no evidence to show that the appellant had taken the crop from the field of the complainant. It is contended that so called receipt is not on the letter head of the society and the same has been denied. The false document has been prepared by the complainant.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel Shri. Jayant Chitnis submitted that as per agreement in between the complainant and the appellant, appellant had given guarantee to sale out the goods and had assured to give the price of Rs.2500/- per Ton. The learned counsel submitted that the appellant was not to purchase the crop in question. As per agreement the guarantee to sale out the crop was given by the 4 F.A. No..: 1918-04 appellant. The appellant had removed the crop and accordingly issued the receipt. He fully supported the judgment.
8. We perused the papers and gave our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by both the counsels. There is no dispute that the appellant had purchased the 1100 plants of aloe from the appellant society. It is also apparent that though the land is in the name of complainant's brother their family being joint, the same has been cultivated by the complainant. The joint family is the presumption under Hindu Law which has not been rebutted by the appellant. There is also no dispute that the agreement was executed in between the complainant and the appellant. It reveals from the agreement that the present appellant had given guarantee to sale out the goods and the appellant had given assurance to give minimum price Rs.2500/- per ton. It can not be said that the appellant was to purchase the crop cultivated in the land of complainant. Simply the appellant had assured to sale out the crop and assured the minimum rate for the same to the tune of Rs.2500/- per ton. In the circumstances, status of the complainant can not said to be of the seller. Admittedly, the plants were purchased by the complainant from the appellant and the appellant had assured to sale out the crop with the minimum rate Rs.2500/- per ton. Forum below has rightly considered that the complainant is a consumer under C.P. Act.
9. The receipt is brought on record by the complainant which mentions that the Chairman of the appellant society had taken the crop of Aloe from the field of the complainant on 30.11.2003 and the said crop was 164.30 ton. The complainant has affirmed this fact in his affidavit. If the signature appeared on the receipt is compared with the admitted signature of the Chairman on the agreement, it appears that both the 5 F.A. No..: 1918-04 signatures are made by one and the same person. We have mentioned that the appellant had agreed to give the minimum rate of Rs.2500/- per ton. Forum below has rightly considered this aspect and rightly directed the appellant to pay Rs.4,10,750/- @ 2500/ per ton for 164.30 tons of aloe. We are not inclined to interfere the order. We pass the following order.
//O R D E R//
1. Appeal is dismissed.
2. Appellant to pay the cost of Rs.1,000/- to the respondent.
3. Copy of order be furnished to the parties.
(Mrs. Uma S. Bora) (S. G. Deshmukh)
Member Presiding Judicial Member
Kalyankar