Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADRAS
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.A. Kader, President;
Mr. Thiru R.N. Manickam, Member
R. MAYILSAMY—Appellant/Complainant
versus
THE SPECIAL OFFICER, AMARAVATI CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD. & ANR.—Respondents/Opposite Parties
A.P. No. 481 of 1992 — Decided on 12.11.1992

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:M/s. S. Senthilnathan, S. Ravi & K.R. Sucharitha, Advocates.
For the Respondents:M/s. S. Selvarathinam and S.D. Santhanakrishnan, Advocates.

In order to claim as a consumer under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act, the person must have hired the services of the opposite party for a consideration paid or promised.

Headnote:
Consumer Dispute - Agricultural Services - The court held that in order to claim to be a consumer under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act, the person must have hired the services of the opposite party for a consideration paid or promised. The complainant in this case had not hired the services of the opposite party for any consideration, and therefore, was not entitled to claim as a consumer.
Fact of the Case:

The complainant entered into an agreement with the Sugar Mill for raising sugarcane crops for the year 1991. The complainant alleged that the Sugar Mill did not cut and carry away the crops in time, resulting in loss, and claimed compensation.
Finding of the Court:

The District Forum accepted the contention of the opposite party and dismissed the complaint. The court upheld the decision of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal, stating that the complainant had not hired the services of the opposite party for any consideration.
Issues: The main issue was whether the complainant could claim to be a consumer under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act, based on the agreement with the Sugar Mill for agricultural services.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act, which requires the hiring of services for a consideration paid or promised in order to claim as a consumer.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld the decision of the District Forum, stating that the complainant had not hired the services of the opposite party for any consideration.

ORDER

Mr. Justice S.A. Kader, President — The appeal arises out of the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dindigul dated 29.1.92 in O.P. 91/91. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.

2. The case of the complainant is that he entered into an agreement with the opposite party, Sugar Mill for raising sugarcane crops for the year 1991. It is his allegation that the opposite party did not cut and carry away the crops in time as a result of which he had to incur much loss. Hence the claim for compensation.

3. The opposite party contended that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the Act. It is pointed out that it is the responsibility of the complainant to cut, remove and produce the sugarcane crops at the premises of the Mill and the Mill has nothing to do with.

4. The District Forum has accepted the contention of the opposite parties and dismissed the complaint. Hence this appeal.

5. In order to entitle a person to claim to be a consumer under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act, he must have hired the services of the opposite party for a consideration paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment. There is absolutely nothing to show in the agreement entered into between the complainant and the opposite party that the complainant had hired the services of the opposite party for any consideration. The agreement says that the complainant who has to cut and produce the sugarcanes at the premises of the Mill. It is therefore clear that the complainant has not hired the services of the Mill. The District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint.

6. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed, but without costs.

Appeal dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis