ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HYDERABAD
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Parvatha Rao, President;
Mr. K. Ranga Rao & Dr. (Mrs.) Mamta Lakshmanna, Members
SHAIK MASTAN SAHEB—Complainant
versus
THE CHAIRMAN, TOBACCO BOARD, GUNTUR—Opposite Party
CD. No. 48 of 1992—Decided on 16.3.1999
Tobacco Board Act - Complaint Dismissed
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased tobacco from an auction held by the Tobacco Board but failed to remove the purchased tobacco from the platform within the stipulated time. Subsequently, he found a deficiency in the weight of the tobacco and sought compensation from the Tobacco Board.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant did not fall within the definition of 'consumer' under the Act after the statutory period for removal of the tobacco from the platform had lapsed. The court dismissed the complaint and advised the complainant to approach the Civil Court for redress if desired.
Issues: The main issue was whether the complainant was entitled to compensation for the deficiency in the weight of the tobacco purchased from the auction held by the Tobacco Board.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the relevant regulations and provisions of the Tobacco Board Act, emphasizing that the services to be rendered by the Auction Superintendent ceased after 5 hours from the time of conclusion of the sale. It was held that no consideration for storage was involved beyond the statutory period for removal of the tobacco from the platform.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the complaint, stating that the complainant could approach the Civil Court for redress if desired.
Mr. Justice S. Parvatha Rao, President— We do not find any basis for allowing this complaint. The complainant has come to this Commission complaining that he purchased tobacco from an auction held by the Tobacco Board pursuant to the Tobacco Board Act, 1975 (‘1975 Act’) and rules and regulations framed under Sections 32 and 33 of the 1975 Act. The Tobacco Board (Auction) Regulations, 1984 are the regulations which governs the sale of tobacco by auction by the Tobacco Board. The officer in charge of the auctions is the Auction Superintendent. The regulations require that the tobacco sold is to be kept in bales which are weighed and marked clearly and arranged for auction on the platforms. The auction procedure is provided under Regulation 15 and the conduct of sales under Regulation 16. The relevant regulation for the purpose of the present complaint is Regulation 24 which is as follows :
“24. Removal of bales by buyers—(1) A buyer shall remove the bales purchased by him from the place of sale on the platform to a place indicated by the Auction Superintendent within half an hour of the closing of the bales after sale.
(2) A buyer shall remove his tobacco from the platform within 5 hours of the sale.
(3) If a buyer fails to remove his tobacco within the time prescribed in Sub- regulation (2), the Auction Superintendent shall not be liable for any loss or damage which the tobacco may sustain.”
In the present case admittedly the complainant after bid did not remove from the platform the tobacco purchased in respect of which he was the highest bidder within 5 hours. He admittedly kept it in the platform godown because he could not pay the bid amount. His complaint is that after he paid the amount and he wanted to take delivery of the tobacco he found that 88 bales instead of weighing 10,621 kgs. weighed only 4,182 kgs. The complainant contends that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Tobacco Board and contends that the opposite party i.e., Chairman, Tobacco Board should be directed to pay him the value of 7,159 kgs. of Tobacco at the rate of Rs. 48/- per kg. as on 28.2.1992 i.e., Rs. 3,43,632/- and interest thereon at 22.5% from 12.7.1991 till the date of filing of the complaint i.e., 28.2.1992 and other incidental x charges in all totalling to Rs. 3,95,140/-. The learned Counsel for the complainant Seeks to rely on Section 14-A of the 1975 Act and contends that the fee collected by the Tobacco Board would amount to consideration for the services to be rendered by the Board. Section 14-A no doubt provides that “it shall be competent for the Board or for any officer of the Board authorised by it in this behalf to levy fees, for the services rendered by the Board in relation to such sale, at such rate not exceeding two per cent of the value of such tobacco as the Central Government may from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify” and that such fees “shall be collected by the Board or such officer, equally form the seller of the Virginia tobacco and the purchaser of such tobacco, in such manner as may be prescribed”. We find that the fees for the services contemplated are only for the conduction of the auction and for the sale of tobacco brought by the buyers and kept on the auction platforms and Regulation 24 clearly provides that the buyers should remove the tobacco from the platform within 5 hours of the sale. Thus the services to be rendered by the Auction Superintendent ceased after 5 hours from the time of conclusion of the sale. It is not the case of the complainant that he paid any charges for the storage of the tobacco purchased by him in the platform godown. Auction of the tobacco was conducted from 3.5.1991 to 18.5.1991 and admittedly the complainant did not remove the tobacco even by July, 1991. In the circumstances we find that no consideration for storage is involved and the complainant cannot seek any compensation for the loss suffered by him in respect of the tobacco kept by him
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.