B.K. Tamini, Member - Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the pan of the petitioner.

2. Very briefly the facts of the case are that the 12th Respondent purchased sun-flower seed from the Petitioner and he allegedly got them transported and then distributed the seed to respondent 1 to 11. The crop allegedly failed and thus', alleging deficiency in service filed a complaint before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties directed the petitioner granting following relief’s:-

“23. In the result, the petition is allowed with costs of Rs. 500/- directing the respondent No. 1 to 3 to pay a sum of Rs. 1,46,700/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of petition, i.e. 20.12.1996, till the date of realization, and also pay a sum of Rs. 12,000/- to the petitioners @ Rs. 1000/- each to the petitioner towards mental agony and also pay a sum of Rs. 42,850/- which is the ,cost of the seeds, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

3. On an appeal being filed by the petitioner before the State Commission, this was dismissed by the State Commission, hence this revision petition.

4. We heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. There is no disputing the fact that it was the respondent No. 12 who had purchased the seed from the petitioner. In the written version filed by the petitioner before the District Forum, they had challenged the 'locus' of the complainants as they had not purchased the seed from the petitioner. We have seen the order of the District Forum and State Commission and find that they have been rather indulgent while dealing with this particular point. The Ld.

Counsel for the respondents also stated that it is a common practice among the villagers who are illiterate, to authorise a certain person on their behalf to purchase the seed. But this authorisation has not been produced either before us or for that matter before the State commission or District Forum.

5. In our view, both the lower forums in treating the respondent No. 1 to 11 as consumers in the absence of any letter of authorisation in favour of 12th respondent as also the fact that the respondent No.1 to 11 were not privy to the purchase of seed, we are unable to appreciate the locus of the respondent/ complainants 1 to 11. In our view both the lower forum should have considered this preliminary objection raised by the petitioners before the District Forum and State Commission. They have dealt with this issue rather cursorily which we are unable to appreciate. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, and whatever may be the practice in the villagers, under the law, we cannot hold the respondent No.1 to 11 as consumers within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In view of this we allow this revision petition. The order passed by the District Forum as affirmed by the State Commission is set aside. The complainant shall, however, be free to pursue the remedy before any other, if so advised. They can take benefit of the time spent before the consumer forum under Section 14 Limitation Act as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works v. P. S. G. Industrial Institute.

Revision allowed.