WESTERN INDIA MATCH COMPANY LTD Vs. JAI BHAGWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals challenge a common order dated 10.02.2004 passed by the Chandigarh Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, 'the State Commission') in complaint case no. 30 of 1998. By this order, the State Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed as under:

(2.) (i) It is undisputed that the OPs 1&2 started a scheme to encourage farmers to undertake plantation of poplar trees by supplying "entire transplant of poplar" (ETPs) and also necessary extension services. It would appear that in this context refinancing by NABARD at concessional rate of interest was available to scheduled/nationalised banks which would lend money to farmers/agriculturists undertaking to plant poplar saplings to be supplied by OP 1. OP 1 had designed a standard Agreement to be entered into with each farmer participating in the scheme. The Agreement provided, inter alia, for payments by the farmer to OP 1/2, in 8 annual instalments, covering both the costs of plants and supply of requisite inputs as well as technical services/guidance. Under the Agreement, at the end of the 8-year period during which the farmer concerned was to tend the plants and grow them to their full potential, with technical support of the OPs 1&2, the latter agreed to buy the fully-grown trees, of defined "harvestable size" under a buy-back arrangement. The interest of OP 1 in the scheme was essentially in the fact that being a manufacturer of safety matches, it was keen to ensure uninterrupted supply of quality poplar wood (used in making matchsticks) at reasonable/pre-determined prices.

(3.) (i) These two appeals arise out of a similar order, also dated 10.02.2004 of the Chandigarh Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, 'the State Commission') in complaint case no. 47 of 1996 filed by Dhara Singh and Sardara Singh, respondents no. 1 and 2 in these appeals. The complaint was filed originally with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal forum, Sonepat and then withdrawn and filed with the Haryana State Commission, and finally transferred by this Commission to the State Commission, Chandigarh, as in the case of the complaint discussed in the preceding paragraphs. Here too, the State Commission partly allowed the complaint by observing as under: