SUKHA SINGH Vs. KUNDAN LAL SURINDER PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of three Appeals No.340, 341 and 342 of 1996 filed against the order dated 27th March, 1996 passed by learned District Forum, Kamal, whereby the complaints of Sukha Singh, Rach Pal Singh and Karnail Singh agriculturists have been dismissed on the ground, that their dispute regarding rendition of accounts and realisation of the price of the agricultural produce sold and payment of Arhtia's commission was a matter which could more appropriately be adjudicated by the Civil Court, as it required the recording of elaborate evidence which could not be undertaken in summary proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. Since the facts and circumstances of the cases and the question of law involved in all these appeals are the same, they are being disposed of by the common order.

(2.) According to the complainants, they had sold their agricultural produce some times in October/november, 1993, through their Arhtias M/s. Kundan Lal Surinder Pal, New Grain Market, Taraori, Distt. Karnal and the entire amount was not paid to them as certain amounts i. e. Rs.33,285.76, paise Rs.34,703.10 paise and Rs.12,115.20 paise of Sukha Singh, Rachpal Singh and Karnail Singh, respectively, were still outstanding. The complainants have further alleged that since they have been customers of the respondent-Arhtias for the last more than 15 years and huge amount had been lying with them earlier also, they should be directed to clear the account and pay the same to the complainants alongwith 15% interest thereon forthwith. In their reply, the respondent pleaded that the service rendered by the Arhtias to the agriculturists were without consideration as the commission for the sale of the produce was not paid by the agriculturists but by the purchasers, hence service of Arhtias were not hired by the agriculturists for consideration within the meaning of Sec.2 (l) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act. On that basis it was pleaded that the -complaints were not maintainable before the District Forum as the complainants were not "consumers" within the meaning of Sec.2 (1) (d) of the Act. Learned District Forum after examining the matter in detail came to the conclusion, that such a matter could not be decided under the Consumer Protection Act and relegated the complainants to seek their remedy before the Civil Court.

(3.) In the appeals before us, learned Counsel for the appellants have vehemently contended, that no doubt the dispute between the parties related to recovery of the price of the agriculture produce sold by the Arhtias, yet the same should not have been referred to the Civil Court and the learned District Forum should have decided the same on merits. After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant we do not agree with him as we fully endorse the approach of the learned District Forum and find from the facts and circumstances of the case, that such a dispute regarding rendition of accounts involving, the realisation of the sale price of the produce and the refund thereof are complicated account matters which can more appropriately be decided by the Civil Court after appreciating the documentary as well as oral evidence. Consequently, there being no legal infirmity in the order passed by the learned District Forums, the appeals are dismissed.