DWARIKESH SUGAR INDUSTRIES LTD. THROUGH AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, DWARIKESH DHAM, P.S. & TEHSIL FARIDPUR, DISTRICT Vs. DHURENDRAPAL SINGH S/O SH. MULAYAM SINGH, R/O SIMRA BORIPUR, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant/respondent Dhurendrapal Singh is a sugarcane farmer, having 13 bigas of land in village Simra Boripur, Tehsil and District Bareilly, U.P. He is stated to have purchased 62 quintals of cane seeds of variety COJ 088 from the petitioner/opposite party (OP) Sugar Mill, Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. and 20 kgs of pesticides and 2.5 bags of DAP fertiliser. He sowed the cane seed in 13 bigas of his land on 02.04.2007 and 03.04.2007, but as stated in the consumer complaint, only 20% of cane seeds germinated, resulting in loss to the farmer/complainant. It was alleged in the consumer complaint that the seeds supplied by the petitioner/opposite party were not of good quality, as a result of which, he suffered a total loss of Rs. 1,30,000.00 and that he should be compensated by the petitioner/opposite party for the said loss. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner/opposite party by filing a written statement before the District Forum, in which they denied that the complainant had purchased 62.19 quintal of sugar-cane seeds from them. It was stated that the complainant was a member of the Co-operative Sugar Cane Society, Faridpur, Bareilly and on the recommendation of the said Society and the application of the complainant, the opposite party had provided the said seeds on loan. The petitioner further stated that they are running a scheme for the development of the mill area, under which high quality seeds of sugar cane are given on loan to farmers without charging interest, and the necessary technical advice is also given to them from skilled and experienced agricultural scientists for raising the crop. It was also stated in the reply that the complainant did not come under the category of ‘Consumer’, as he had taken the seeds of sugarcane on loan for the purpose of his business and he gained considerable benefit by selling his crop. The complainant had supplied 240 quintals of Sugarcane to the Mill between 22.12.2007 and 01.02.2008, and also repaid the loan taken by him.

(2.) During proceedings before the District Forum, the petitioner/opposite party submitted an application raising a preliminary issue that the complainant did not fall in the category of ‘Consumer’.

(3.) The District Forum, vide their order dated 11.02.2009, rejected the contention of the petitioner/opposite party and stated that the complainant came under the definition of ‘Consumer’ and the District Forum had jurisdiction to decide the complaint. Being aggrieved against this interim order, the petitioner challenged the same by way of a revision petition before the State Commission. The said revision petition having been dismissed by the State Commission, vide impugned order dated 08.02.2016, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.