P.D. Shenoy, Member—The main issue to be decided by this Commission in these revision petitions is whether the petitioners are the consumers under the Consumer Protection Act and whether the complaints filed by them can be treated as a consumer disputes.

The case of the complainants in brief are as follows:

2. Petitioners-complainants before the District Forum. The complainants are the owners of several acres of land in Motupalli village, which were converted into prawn ponds. The respondent—M/s. Dabur Ayurvet Ltd., (for short Dabur) had supplied feed and medicines for the growth of prawns. It is alleged in the complaint that it was issued by Dabur that if the feed and medicines supplied by them were put to use the product will give 24 to 30 count of prawns per kilogram. Bigger prawns will fetch more price and that cost Rs.400/- per kilogram approximately and if the size of the prawn is less the price per kg would be Rs. 50/- to Rs. 60/- only. It is alleged that the growth of the prawns was very poor. Complainant referred the matter to the opposite party who sent a team from the feed company by the name Mr. Lee who suspected failure of feed. It is the case of the complainant that OP No.1, has sent their sales promoter Mr. Suresh who visited the ponds and found only 80 to 3000 count prawns in the ponds. On the other hand in a nearby pond where feed used was GP, Gold Coin and Avanthi those farmers got 23 count prawns. Meanwhile, the complainant sent one of the remaining bags of feed for chemical examination and it was found that there is a variation of components from the specifications indicated on the bag and in the physical stock. Further, the original label was allegedly removed and the label does not contain the date of manufacture and the date of expiry. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the complainant approached the District Forum to direct the opposite party to pay compensation ranging from Rs.5 lakh to Rs.18.5 lakh.

3. This was contested by the opposite party Dabur which stated that it is neither a necessary nor a proper party for adjudication of the complaint and had no dealings whatsoever with the complainants and has never sold any of its products to the complainants. The complainant had neither purchased any goods nor availed any service for any consideration. They have not mentioned the details of purchase such as quantity of feed, the brand, the quality and its ingredients in the complaint. The alleged feed has not been produced before the District Forum. It was alleged by the opposite party that these eight complaints have been filed at the instance of one Mr. Amanchi Srinivasa Rao, so as to avoid going to the State Commission. The complainants are not having any license for engaging in prawn culture. M/s Rajendra Enterprises of which Amanchi Srinivasa Rao is the proprietor is heavily indebted to the opposite party in business transaction and he has issued post dated cheques to the opposite party towards the discharge of legal debts. All these cheques have bounced. The complainants have admitted before the District Forum that Shri Amanchi Srinivasa Rao of M/s Rajendra Enterprises was neither an agent nor a distributor of M/s Dabur Ayurvet Ltd. As there is no material or evidence to show that there was any express or implied warranty or guarantee given to the complainants that prawns count per kg will be between 24 to 30. Further, the sample was given to Anu Lab by Amanchi Srinivasa Rao and not by other complainants. This laboratory is not an agency authorized by the Government to analyze such samples. Further the report from CIBA Chennai was obtained after one year of the supply of the goods and no efforts were made to identify the samples and follow the procedure under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainants have not paid any consideration to Dabur and there are no documents to show that any purchase of feed. Further no proof has been shown about the repor