SAHKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI Vs. RAMJIYAWAN DUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 31.8.1992 passed by District Consumer Forum, Gorakhpur in Complaint Case No.129/1992.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Sri Ramjiyawan Dubey is an agriculturist and grows cane crops every year and supplies cane to the Sardarnagar Sugar Factory. He is a member of the Cooperative Cane Marketing Society of Sardarnagar. As per orders of the Government, the cane grown by every grower is surveyed by Cane Supervisors and on the basis of the quantity of cane produced the supply slips are issued to the growers according to a fixed calendar so that the growers can supply the cane to the sugar factory at various intervals as per the calendar so fixed. The complainant was not issued supply slip in respect of the cane grown by him in acres of land in village Rasoolpur. The failure of the Cane Society, opposite party, in not issuing the supply slip of cane resulted into loss to the complainant as he could not supply the cane to the Sugar Factory. The cane got dried up and he was put to a loss of Rs.8,000/-. He had been representing to the officers of the Cane Society, the opposite party and had to incur a sum of Rs.500/- as travelling charges. He, therefore, lodged a claim before the District Consumer Forum for recovery of Rs.8,500/- as loss incurred as a result of non-supply of cane, Rs.500/- as the expenses towards travelling and Rs.1,500/- as compensation for mental and physical torture.

(3.) The opposite party in the written version before the District Consumer Forum contended that as per orders of the Government, at the start of the crushing season, the Cane Supervisor surveys the cane area and submits the statement of cane grown by each of the cane growers to the Senior Cane Development Inspector and thereafter a final statement is prepared on the basis of which the cane supply entitlement of each grower to the factory is notified which is known as "satta". The objections are invited against this notification and after hearing objections the 'satta' is finalized. Since the complainant did not grow any cane in the crushing season 1991-92, therefore, he did not become entitled to supply cane for the coming crushing season nor did he prefer his objection against the notified "satta". Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any relief and since he is not a consumer in this case the complaint is not maintainable before the District Forum.