Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In the present case even the entire Village was suffered, the case was filed individually.

27. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer an unreported decision in O.P.No.41/1996 of A.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad dt.30-11-1999 in the Secretary, Bapatla Mandal Consumers Welfare Association, Bapatla Vs. Group Insurance Corporation of India, Hyderabad, State Level Crop Insurance Cell, A.P., United India Insurance Building, Hyderabad and Andhra Bank, Appikatla, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District, it was held that the complainant was not a consumer and the Commission had no jurisdiction to enquire into the dispute raised by the complainant. The Comprehensive Crop Insurance Scheme was introduced at the instance of the Central Government and the compensation to be paid under the Scheme was not by virtue of any hiring of services for consideration. The participation of the State Government was not purely contractual on the basis of the services hired for consideration, but on the basis of the scheme itself. In view of the above decision, the complainant was not a consumer under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act. It was not a consumer dispute, because the farmers covered under the scheme were not consumers. Hence, the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the complainant is not entitled for any relief from this Forum. However, the complainant is not precluded from seeking any appropriate relief from any appropriate Forum. Thus, the complaint is not maintainable. Hence, the points are answered accordingly.