AJMER SINGH And OTHERS vs SECRETARY, JARNAIL SINGH, THE RADAUR CANE GROWER CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.

WHETHER the members of a Cane-growers Co-operative Society are consumers qua the said Society - is the solitary question in this set of four connected appeals. Learned Counsel for the parties are agreed that this order will govern all of them.

THE representative matrix of facts may be noticed from First Appeal No. 108 of 1993 ''Ajmer Singh v. Jarnail Singh Secretary, THE Radaur Cane Grower Co-operative Society & Another''. THE appellants therein are admittedly the members of the aforesaid society and on the basis of indents supplied by it, they made deliveries to the sugar mill at Yamuna-nagar. THE grievance projected in the complaint was that the respondent-society have not issued indents to the complainants as per the terms of the agreement executed by them and this was allegedly a deficiency in service. The respondent-society in its written statement inter-alia took up the firm preliminary objection that the complainants were not consumers within the confines of the definition thereof under the Act. It was the firm plea that neither any services had been hired from the society by the complainants nor any semblance of consideration had been paid and further that there was no deficiency in service at all.

The District Forum on an in depth consideration of the preliminary objection came to the conclusion that admittedly the complainants were not paying any fee or charge to the society for obtaining indents from the society for selling sugar cane to the local mill arid the mere membership fee paid by them for becoming a member of the Society was not by any stretch of imagination a consideration nor were any services being hired or rendered betwixt the parties. Consequently, it concluded that the appellants were not consumers and the complaint was not maintainable and, therefore, dismissed.

MR. H.O. Sharma, the learned Counsel for the appellants had with considerable force and vehemence projected a somewhat crumbling case. Our attention was drawn to Bye-laws 2(ii), 4(iii), 5 and 9 for the tenuous contention that there was a relationship of a hirer of services betwixt the members of the Society and further consideration was being paid in the shape of the original fee paid by the appellants to become members of the said Society. Reliance was sought to be placed on the orders of the State Commission in 1991 CPC 194 ''Credit Society No. 46, Kodavalur Mandal, Nellore District v. Kareti Chandra Reddy & another'' and CPC 1992 144 ''Sqn. Ldr. Gurdial Singh & Anr. v. United Land and Housing Ltd. Delhi & Ors.'' Since we are of the firm view that the matter is concluded against the appellants by the binding decision of the National Commission, it would be wasteful to extend the compliment of a rational refutation to the submissions of the learned Counsel in which we otherwise do not find any merit. It suffices to mention that the cases relied upon are plainly distinguishable and have been rendered on their own peculiar facts.

THE virtually identical issue before us had come up before the National Commission in I (1992) CPJ 30 (NC)=(1991) 1 CPR 434. ''Devashish Mitra v. THE Managing Director, M/s. Lakshmi Varsha Company & Anr.'' In no uncertain terms, it was observed as follows : "During the hearing the appellant was asked to establish as to how he claimed to be a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and whether he had paid any consideration by way of hire charges to the respondents. He had become a member of the respondent-company on payment of the enrolment fee of Rs. 50/-; he could not be deemed to be a hirer of the services to be rendered by a hire. THE services in this case were to be rendered to members as per enrolment form. In other words, the services were given to the members of the company as members and not as hirers. THE Commission, therefore, finds that the appellant has invoked the Consumer Disputes Redressal machinery frivolously. THE order of the State Commission is upheld and the appeal is dismissed."

It is somewhat plain that the aforesaid ratio covers the matter herein on all fours. It must be further noticed that Mr. Sharma when confronted with the said judgment, in all fairness stated his inability to distinguish the same. In view of the above, we must conclude that the members of a Cane Grower Co-operative Society are not consumers qua the said Society merely on the ground of having paid some entrance or membership fees, therefore.

IN the light of the aforesaid conclusion, all the four appeals must inevitably be dismissed, but we leave the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.