AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
I propose to dispose of all the above mentioned Revision Petitions vide this order since the facts and question of law involved in them are the same.
Facts are being taken from Revision Petition No.944 of 2020.
The brief facts of the case are that the Complainants filed the Complaint before the District Forum against the Petitioner and the Respondents No.11 to 16 (Opposite Parties No.2 to 7) and only the Petitioner and the Respondents No.15 and 16, namely, Regional Manager and the Managing Director of Jute Corporation of India Limited, had filed their written statements. Complainants, who were the farmers of seasonal crops, grew jute and stored their produce at Bhartiya Gramin Bhandar, Bhetaguri and by pledging the said produce took a loan of 60% of the value of the jute. The produce was stored with a view to sell it to the Jute Corporation of India, i.e., the Petitioner at a profitable price. It was the contention of the famers that the jute price was fixed at Rs. 3,800/- to 4,200/- per quintal as was clear from the memo no.RO/C0B/2012-2013 dated 15.05.2012. However, when they approached the Petitioner to sell their produce, the Petitioner refused to purchase the same. It was alleged that the Petitioner was duly bound to produce the jute from the farmers directly in order to prevent the distress sale. The farmers approached the Jute Corporation of India as well as the Banker Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank for making arrangements of the purchase of the stored jutes but they refused to buy it @ Rs. 3,800/- to 4,200/- per quintal. The JCI however informed the Bhetaguri Krishi Gramin Mazdoor Sangha that in the Cooch Behar region, the JCI had agreed to purchase the jute from the farmers @ Rs. 2,200/- per quintal. Alleging that the JCI's primary duty is to purchase the jute from the farmers, they have to purchase it at the prevailing rate of Rs. 3,800/- to 4,200/- per quintal during the relevant period, the farmers filed the said Complaint.
The JCI, i.e., the Petitioner took several objections in the written statement filed before the District Forum. It was alleged that the Complaint was barred by limitation and that it was bad of misjoinder of parties etc. It was further contended that the JCI had never promised or gave assurance for the purchase of jute from the Complainants. It was submitted that the JCI purchased the jute from its different farmers at the prevailing rate to safeguard the interest of the farmers and that too with the guidelines of the JCL and that during the year 2010-2011, huge quantity of jute was purchased from the concerned jute farmers of the locality and nearby villages. It is admitted that Bhartiya Gramin Bhandar, Bhetaguri, i.e., the Opposite Party No.6, wanted to know the purchase price of different varieties and grades of raw jute procured by the DPC for the year 2010-2011 and the Opposite Party No.2, i.e., JCI, issued the letter dated 15.05.2012 stating that the purchase price for the period 2010 to 2011 was Rs. 3,800/- (minimum) to 4,200/- (maximum). It was alleged that through this letter, the Opposite Party had never assured to purchase the jute from the farmers. It was further contended that the Complainant had never wanted to sell their produce to the Petitioner and that they had never approached them to sell the same. In para 15 of the written statement, the Petitioner has stated that in the year 2010-2011, the MSP was Rs. 1600/- for raw jute whereas the prevailing market rate was much higher than that of MSP and Rs. 2200/- was the rate for the year 2012-2013. It is submitted that the procurement of price varies per year for MSP.
The other Opposite Parties were ex parte.
Parties led their evidences before the District Forum and the District Forum after hearing the parties and perusing the evidences on record, has held as under:
"For the OP No.l to 3 the Regional Manager (l/C) of the JCIL, Cooch Behar region in his written version stated that the Complainants had/have no relation/connection with this three O.Ps. as there was no occasion to render any service and/or contract/business relation with them. They are not "Consumer" and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint which is barred by limitation, estoppels waiver and acquiescence and bad for non-joinder/mis-joinder etc. in protection Act, 1986. It has been assailed that the Proforma defendant No.6 i.e. Braja Gobinda Barman (Assistant Teacher) is the kingpin in initiating the present proceeding. The statement in the complaint that "thereafter, they state it to the Ops in accordance with the direction and promised by the O.Ps" are distorted and emphatically denied. The Regional Manager has never promised or gave any assurance of purchase Complainants as alleged. The O.Ps. through its different Departmental Purchase Centre (DPC) purchased or procured raw-jute at the prevailing market rate to safeguard the interest of the farmers and that to with the guidelines of the Jute Corporation of India (JCI) and they have their D.P.C. at Bhetaguri which is well known to the Complainant and through that centre huge quantity of jute are being purchased in every year and in the season 2010-11 huge quantity of jute were purchased from the concerned jute farmers of the locality and the surrounding nearby village. The O.Ps. have denied that the petitioners want to sell their stored jute concerned to the O.Ps on 02-11-2010-and the OPs denied to purchase the said jute with Rs. 3,800/- and with Rs.4,200/-". The petitioners never want to sell their product to the O.Ps nor the O.Ps denied the same as alleged. The Secretary, Bhentagurl Krishi Gramin Majdur Sangha wrote a letter to the Jute Commissioner, the copy of which was forwarded to the Regional Manager, JCl vide letter dated 14-06-2012 wherein he specifically asserted that the price of the jute has fallen and urged/requested to purchase their stored jute with the rate of Rs.4,2C0/- per quintal as existed on 04-11-2010. The Company Secretary cum General Manager of JCl, Koikata duly intimated about the Minimum Support Price (MSP) by which JCI purchase the jute through their DPCs which was the Govt. declared rate for the season 2012-13. These answering O.Ps have/had" no nexus with the business transaction held in between the Complainant with that of O.P. No.6. It has further been alleged that the Complainants have filed the case to avoid re-payment of bank loan. There is no cause of action and they are not entitled to get any compensation what so ever. Over the self-same allegation, three other cases have .been engineered being DF Case No.23/2013, 24/2013 and 25/2013 and It is none else but that O.P. No.6 who managed to mislead the Complainant in lodging such case.
The Proforma O.P. No.6 I.e. Mr. Braja Gobinda Barman owner of "Bharatiya Gramin Bhandar" In his written version dated 10-06-2013 stated that his rural godown is aided by NABARD and finance by Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Bhetaguri Branch. He has vouched for the Complainants almost on every point and additionally supported and admitted the factum as stated in the petition of complaint. He has stated that the Complainants stored 24.395MT jute in his godown Immediately after harvest and received godown receipts by which they availed pledge loan from the bank as per scheme. He has mentioned about so many correspondence with different authorities of bank JClL Govt. and other administrative authorities on various dates at different places of West Bengal. Besides, he has made correspondence with the Hon'ble Ministers of West Bengal and the Ministers of Govt. of India. He has left no stored unturned. He has annexed so many letters, statements of which the vital letters and replies are (1) Proforma O.P, No.6 received a letter from the Jute Commissioner's Office vide Memo No.Jute (T)-6/l/53/200S-ll, dated 9" July, 2012 in which the Jute Commissioner requested the Managing Director, JCl to examine the case and take necessary action. (2) The B.M, Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Bhetaguri Branch admitted the rate of jute (Tossa) of Rs. 4,200/- per quintal and on the basis "of this rate the Branch Manager, U.B.K.G.B., Bhetaguri Branch sanctioned 60% pledge loan to the petitioners as maximum even after 02:11-2010, (3) The JCl admitted the rate of jute (Tossa) of Rs.4,200/- per quintal up to 04-'ll-2010 vide Memo No. JCI/RO/COB/MKT/2012-13 dated 15-05-2013.(4) The market price of jute of Rs. 4,200/- per quintal was existed up to the first week of November, 2010 according to the report of the Assistant Agricultural Marketing Officer, Dinhata, Dist.- Cooch Behar.
He has alleged that Inspite of intimation the O.P. No.5 i.e. the Branch manager, Uttarbanga Kshetrlya Gramin Bank, Bhetaguri Branch has not taken any step even when the price of jute was decreasing to get it sold.
He has filed some aspects of mission, vision, objectives and services of JCl reflecting that implementation of the policy of the Govt. of India for providing minimum support price (MSP) to the jute growers of the country they are to support, for the success of its commercial operation. Memo No.417 dated 27-06-2012 as to Report of Deputy Director of agricultural Marketing (Administrative) northern range Jalpaigurl speaks of distress of petitioners who also had visited Bharatiya Gramin Bhandar and U.B.K.G.B. on 22-06-2012. He has also produced certified copies of 12 pages as per RTI Act, 2005. He collected survey report on remunerative price from the farmers at that time. He has banked upon the stopped purchase by JCl with Rs.4,200/- (DPC) per quintal after 04-11-2010. He has emphasized on the policy and objectives of the pledge loan.
On scrutiny of evidence of the 10 Complainants on affidavit dated 03-07-2013 speaks almost replica of the petition of complaint. Only the added point is that the farmers cultivated jute (Tossa), It has been stated that subsequently, on 10-08-2012 the O.P. No.3 sent a letter to the proforma O.P. No.7 which reveals that "there are Departmental Purchase centre of the corporation in Cooch Behar Region where the corporation purchases from jute growers at the DPCs at MSP which Is Rs. 2,200/- per quintal. (TD5 Ex-Assam). Therefore, the corporation is not In a position to address the problem as stated by you in your referred letter". The Complainants are small cultivators of crops (i.e. jute Tossa). After cultivation they stored farm product (i.e. jute Tossa) in rural godown for prevention of distress sale. Thereafter, they are to sale it to the O.P.s in accordance with the direction and promised by the O.Ps. They have also stated that the cultivation is their source of income and for the said cultivation they had to obtain 60% pledge loan against their jute product for cultivation in the next season and earned by selling those stored jute in the godown with the assistance of the bank to the JCI Ltd. When the price will be considerably higher. But even after giving intimation to the bank both verbally and by letters the bank ahas taken no initiative to sell those stored jute either to the JCIL or in open market. On the other hand the bank issued notice upon them to repay the loan and as such they are passing their days in distress. Further neither the Govt. nor the Jute Corporation of India inspite of their policy and procedure published in No.JCI/Mkg/jute/2012-2013/335 dated 10.08.2012 of the Company Secretary-cum-Gneral Manager, JCI Ltd. Has declared with reference to letter no.Nil dated 14.06.2012 in respect of procecurement of raw jute when the market price is equal to or below the Minimum Suppo9rt Price (MSP). There are Department Purchase Centers of the Corporation in Cooch Behar Region where the Corporation purchases from the jute groers at the DPCs at MSP which is Rs. 2,200/- per quintal. (TDS Ex-Assam) Such price was not acceptable to the complainants.
On the other hand Shri Pushpajit Roy, Regional Manager, in-charge for self (O.P. No.2) and for O.P. Nos. 1 and 3 has stated in his deposition that they never promised or gave any assurance of purchase of jute to the Complainant as alleged that through their different Departmental purchase centre (DPC) purchased or procured raw jute at the prevailing market rate to safeguard the interest of the farmers and that to with the guidelines of the Jute Corporation of India Ltd. And their DPC at Bhetaguri which is well known to the complainants and through that centre huge quantity of jute are being purchased in every year and in the season 2010-11 huge quantity of jute were purchased from the concerned ute farmers of the locality and the surroung nearby village. The Proform O.P. No.6 is running a godown on commercially with profiteering motive under name and style "Bharatiya Gramin Bhandar"at Bhetaguri and the said Proforma O.P. No.6 by a letter dated 15.5.2012 intending to know the purchase price of different varieties and grades of raw jute procured by DPC in the year 2010-11 and on the absis of such letter stated the purchase price as offered for that season only. The said letter will speak for itself. Through the said letter he does not in any way assured purchase of jute as alleged. The petitioner never went to sell their product to their concern nor they had/have ever denied the same as alleged. On the other hand Shri Dulal Chadnra Chanda as a Secretary, Bhetaguri Krishi Gramin Majdur Sangha wrote a letter to the Jute Commissioner, the copy of which was forwarded to him vide letter dated 14.06.2010 wherein he specifically asserted that the price of the jute has fallen and urged/requested to purchase their stored jute with the rate of Rs. 4200/- per quintal as existed on 04.11.2010. The said letter was duly answered by the Company Secretary-cum General Manager of JCIL, Kolkata and the said Secretary duly intimated about the Minimum Support Price (MS) by which JCI purchase the jute through their DPCs which was the Govt. declared rate for the season 2012-13. The said letter has/had no bearing with the instant case in hand. They also asserts that the Proforma O.P. No.6 in connivance with the complainants have managed to lodge the complaint just to avoid re-payment of loan. The entire case is based on false statement. They have/had no nexus with the business transactions held in between the complainants with that of O.P.No.6 and there was no negligence on their part.
It may be stated that in the year 2010-11, the MSP was Rs. 1600/- (TD-5 basis) for raw jute wheras the prevailing market rate was much higher than that of MSP and Rs. 2200/- was for the year 2012-13. The procurement of price varies each year for MSP but with regard to the commercial purchase, the price fully depends upon the running market price.
The evidence of Proforma O.P. No.6 is also almost carbon copy of his written version save and except the statement that he received letter from the Jute Commissioner's Office vide Memo No. Jute (T}-6/l/53/2005-II, dated 9th July, 2012 in which the Jute Commissioner requested the Managing Director, JCI to examine the case and take necessary action. In this letter the jute commissioner did not deny to purchase the jute.
The evidence of Proforma O.P. No.7 is alike his written version but In different format, supporting the evidence of the Proforma O.P. No.6 and stated in favour of the Complainants emphasizing on the rate of In between Rs. 3,800/- and Rs. 4,200/- per quintal. He also stated about the letter received by him from the O.P. No.3 under Memo No. JCI/MK16-Jute/2012-13/335 dated 10-08-2012.
The written argument for the Complainants is supporting to the complaints but in its contents at some paragraph has been explored in various ways i.e. the O.P. No.5 i.e. Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Bhetaguri Branch, that it did not render proper service towards the petitioners /Complainants though they have power to sell the stored jute as per circular No.C/S5/31/822/CMRD-l of the bank i.e. O.P. No.5. The Corporation's objectives are to maintain a constant dialogue with jute growers, State Govt. of the jute growing States, Apex Co-operative acting as their agent, consumers, Industries, financial institutions and our employees while farming polices & programs on raw Jute Procurement. Procurement of raw jute directly from the growers either through their own purchase centers or through co-operatives at the minimum support prices fixed by Govt. of India from time to time. Providing market information as a decision support system to the jute growers. To buy whatever quantity offered for sale at minimum support prices and ensures that market prices do not fall below the minimum support price declared by the Govt. of India from time to time.
Jute Technology Mission (Mini Mission-llll Market Linkage of Raw Jute) To assist jute growers by appropriate market support to enable them to get market price. But It is a matter of great regret and depressing to the poor cultivators/jute growers that, the JCIL have neither followed his vision and mission nor care to maintain his object and service. Petitioners after knowing the fact of their produce (jute) became very depressed and trying to destroy themselves to get relief from the burden of bank loan, burden of godown rent, burden of other credit in the market. That finding no other alternative, the petitioners/Complainants at last have come before the Ld. Forum, to save them from such unbearable and odd situation. It has further been asserted that the written objection filed by the O.P. No.l to 3, and O.P. No.5, speaks that they have always tried to hide the actual facts. It has been further stated that the JCIL is the safeguard of rate of jute of the farmers but the JCIL unethically stopped purchasing after 04-11-2010 without any Information to the Complainants and to the bank i.e. O.P. No.5, and failed to "maintain a constant dialogue with jute growers. State Govt. of the jute growing Stales, Apex Co-operative acting as our agent, Consumers, Industries, financial Institutions and their employees while farming polices & programmes on raw jute procurement", No sooner had the JCIL stopped purchasing jute with the rate of Rs.3,800/- to Rs.4,200/- per quintal after 04-11-2010 than the market price started falling. (Report collected from the Assistant Agricultural Marketing Officer, Dinhata, Dist.- Cooch Behar, marked as G/9. The O.Ps did not make arrangement to purchase the stored jute from the Complainants and as such their deficiency in services.
Written Argument submitted by the O.P. No.5 speaks that the O.P. No,5 is the Branch Manager of U.B.K.G.B., Bhetaguri Branch and it is an established financial Banking Organization and has been running its business in the different areas of the district, The bank sanctioned 60% loan @50,000/- each to the petitioners on the basis of their stored quantity of jute, under certain terms and conditions. They entered into an agreement with the bank. As per terms and conditions the petitioners miserably failed to re-pay the loan amounts. As such they became defaulter In repayment of their loan extended by the bank. In number of times letters had been sent to the petitioners with a request to re-pay their respective loans; but neither the petitioners repaid the loan amount nor paid the Interest accrued upon the loan. The false allegations brought by the petitioners against the bank with an ulterior motive just lo make delay and thereby to avoid the re-payment of loan, given by the bank. Based on the valuation of the stored jute 60% loan was granted by the bank and such petitioners are liable to re-pay the loan with Interest to the bank. It is bounded duty & liability of the petitioners to re-pay the loan amount; but they always avoided the re-payment of loan and illegally by making false and baseless statements instituted this instant case implicating the bank with a view just to avoid and cause delay in the re-payment of bank loan. The petitioners miserably failed to establish their case as such they are not entitled for any relief as claimed by them. The petitioners did not approach the Ld. Forum with clean hand as such they are not entitled for the reliefs as prayed for and as such the instant case should be ^dismissed with cost in the Interest of natural justice and fair play. He has prayed for dismiss the case with sufficient cost and specifically assailing adverse against the O.P. No.6 holding that he Is behind the filing of the false cases in connivance with the Complainants.
The O.P.No.6 filed a Circular of the Bank mentioning DF Case Nos. 21/2013, 23/2013, 24/2013, 25/2013. Gist of which speaks as follows:
Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Circular No. C/55/31/822/CMRD-l dated 03-05-2007 speaks in gist that the scheme is meant for the cultivators who are forced to sell their agricultural products at a very low rate just after harvesting of crops. This scheme intends to help the helpless farmers especially who take crop loans from their bank.
Quantum of loan: 60% of market value or a minimum support price declared by Govt. whichever is lower may be the quantum of loan subject to maximum Rs.50,000/- per borrower.
Security: Loan will be secured by hypothecation of produce through pledge of Ware House/Godown/Cold Storage Receipts.
Periodicity of loan: The loan facility under the scheme is for a period not exceeding six months.
The outstanding amount in Agriculture Cash Credit a/c or in KCC a/c for that crop in the name of the borrower would be fully recovered by debiting the DL (Ag) loan a/c (b). The excess amount after recovery of earlier loan by the amount of this loan as noted in (b), to be disbursed to the borrower and shortfall, if any, is to be recovered from the borrower.
Inspection and storage: (i) Bank will have the right to Inspect the Ware House/Godowns/Cold storage at any time for which branches identify/negotiate with Ware House/Cold Storages/Godowns for a tie up, (ii) The Ware House/Godown/Cold Storage Authority not to deliver goods without authorization from the bank, (ill) Delivery of goods will be made to the borrowers against corresponding payment of loan amount.
Insurance: Ware-House/Godown/Cold Storage owner must have Insurance policies for insurance of stocks/goods. Branch has to obtain a confirmation from them.
Interest rate: Rate of interest will be 12% p.a.
Bank will have the right to take possession and sell of goods for recovery of loan at any point of time depending on (i) position of loan account, (ii) falling market price and/or (iii) deterioration in the quality of stored goods. Branch Manager should closely monitor such advances including inspection of pledged/hypothecated goods and periodical contacts with the Ware House/Godown/Cold Storage authorities so that timely actions can be taken by them for recovery of bank's advances under the scheme. Branch Managers are instructed to popularize the scheme for increasing bank's lending in agricultural sector taking all safety measures.
Now, It is pertinent to give a brief of the written arguments put forwarded by the parties in support of their respective cases discussed herein before.
Now, it is also pertinent to mention that the 10 Complainants in the instant case could not file any original documents in support of their complaint, reason best known to them. The O.Ps also refrained from producing any document in original, to adduce in evidence but they had filed Xerox copies as annexure marked/unmarked and assailed mentioning those papers/documents. In their cases also reason best known to them.
Whereas, the O.P. No.6 owner of "Bharatiya Gramin Bhandar" has produced some original/carbon/authenticated Xerox copies of voluminous, documents, under a list of Documents together in DF Case Nos. 21/2013, 23/2013, 24/2013 & 25/2013, containing serial No.l to 29 which have been marked Exhibits: Besides, some other documents also have later been submitted by the Ld. Advocate for the complainants in respect of the matters entrusting the O.P.no.6 to take all required steps for their benefit on behalf of them and also the papers .relating to the proposed release of the jute from the godown of the O.P.no.6.We have gone through the same.
Sl.No.
Description of document and parties to the
document
Date, if any, of
document in
vernacular and In
English.
Exhibits
1.
Jute Corporation of India, Regional Office.
Cooch Qehar, Memo No. R.O/COB/Mkt/2012-
13 regarding purchase and rate of jute of
Rs.3,800/- to Rs.4,200/-
15-05-2012 1
page
Exbt.1
2.
Godown receipt in origina! of 38 farmers.
17.08.2010 to 02.11.2010 38 page
Exbt.2, 2/1 to 2/37
3.
Statement of pledge finance issued by bank
in original regarding 38 farmers
23.07.2011 4 page
Exbt.3, 3/1 to 3/3
4.
Farmers memorandum to the State
agricultural Minister
25.07.2011 2 page
Exbt.4, 4/1
5.
Letter-to the State Agricultural Minister by
Bharatiya Gramin Bhandar
29.07.120114 page
Exbt.5, 5/1 to 5/3
6.
Farmer's letter to the Bharatiya Gramin
Bhandar for cotntnunicaiion
25.07.2011 1 page
Exbt.6
7.
Letter to the Union Agricultural Minister
31.07.2011 1 page
Exbt.7
8
Letter to the District Magistrate
10.08.2011 1 page
Exbt.8
9
To the Pradhan. Bhetaguri-I G.P.
10.08.2011 1 page
Exbt.9
10
To the D.D.M., NABARD
10.08.2011 1 page
Exbt.10
11
To the Asstt. Director, Agricultural Marketing Offier, Cooch Behar
10.08.2011 1 page
Exbt.11
12
To the Chairman, UBKGB
10.08.2011 1 page
Exbt.12
13
To the Area Manager, UBKGB
10.08.2011 1 page
Exbt.13
14
To the Branch manager, UBKGB
10.08.2011 1 page
Exbt.14
15
To the BDO Dihata-I
10.08.2011 1 page
Exbt.15
16
To the SDO Dihata
10.08.2011 1 page
Exbt.16
17
To Shri Sharad Power, Hon'ble Union Minister of Agriculture
14.11.2011 2 page
Exbt.17, 17/1
18
To the Principle Secretary, Agriculture Department, Govt. of W.B.
26.12.2011 2 page
Exbt.18, 18/1
19
To Shri Prabir Kr. Basu, Secretary, Agriculture Department, Govt. of W.B.
11.04.2012 2 page
Exbt. 19, 19/1, 19/2
20
To the Principle Secretary, Agriculture Department, Govt. of W.B.
14.06.2012 5 page
Exbt.20, 20/1 to 20/4
21
To the Jute Commissioner, Jute Corporation of India, Ministry of Textiles, Govt. of India
14.06.2012 2 page
Exbt.21, 21/1
22
Letter from the Jute Commissioner to the Chairman cum Managing director, JCIL, Kolkata-87 with other paper
09.07.2012 6 page
Exbt.22, 22/1 to 22/5
23
Letter to the Secretary, Bhetaguri KrishI and
gramin Majdoor Sangha from/by the JCIL,.
Kolkata-87
10.08.2012 2 page
Exbt.23, 23/1
24
Lettrr to iijfmeis from/by U»; Branch
Manager, U.D.K.G.B,
31.01.2013 10 page
Exbt.24, 24/1 to 24/9
25
To the Regional manager, JCIL, Cob.
21.06.2012 2 page
Exbt.25, 25/1
26
To Shri Manmohan Singh, Hon'ble Prime
Minister, Govt. of India
21.06.2012 1 page
Exbt.26
27
To Smt, Mamatd Sanerjeo, Hon'ble Chief
1 Minister, Govt. of W.U.
21.06.2012 1 page
Exbt.27
28
To the Principle Secretary,. Agriculture
Department, Govt. of vy.B.
21.06.2012 1 page
Exbt.28
29
Circular No, C/55/31/822/CMRD-l of
U.B.K.G.B.
03.05.2007 2 page
Exbt.29, 29/1
From the aforesaid materials, exhibits on record, the petition of complaint, written versions of the Opposite Parties including the Proforma Opposite Parties, evidence adduced by the respective parties, written as well as oral arguments, fact & circumstances put forward by the respective parties, in our considered view the following Issues/Points came to light for consideration and decision thereof, together with taking the objectives of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Rules & Regulations there under and the Reported Decisions of the State Commissions, the National Commission besides; the Reported Judgments of the Hon'ble High Courts and the Apex Court.
Issues/Points for Consideration
Whether the Complainants are the "Consumers" of the Opposite Parties? If so of who's consumers?'
Whether the Petition of complaint contains consumer disputes? if so, which are the Disputes and shat for?
Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
Whether the case lacks in estoppels, non-joinder/miss-joinder of any necessary party?
Whether the Opposite Parties, cited in the complaint, rendered deficiency in service by their acts/ omissions/ negligence /violation of various Acts/ Rules/ Regulations/Provisions etc? If so, who are liable for such matters & to what extent?
Whether the complainants proved their case in respect to the alleged disputes beyond reasonable doubt?
Whether the Proforma Opposite Parties No.6 & 7 are factually/actually Opposite Parties? if so who's Opposite Parties?
Whether the Opposite Parties exclusively and/or jointly/severally with the Proforma Opposite Parties are liable to pay compensation to the complainants, if any? If so, who are to pay the same and to what extent and how?
Whether the complainatns are entitled to get relief(s) as prayed for" if so, how and to what extent and under what condition/conditions?
DECISION WITH REASON
Point No. 1. Whether the Complainants are the "Consumers" of the Opposite Parties. If so of who's consumers?
From the discussions herein before, though the opposite parties In various ways have assailed that the complainants are not directly "consumers" to all the opposite parties; but we find that they are invariably consumers of the opposite parties No.1, 5 & 6 according to the section 2(l)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and hence, this point is decided in favour of the complainants.
Point No. 2. Whether the Petition of Complaint contains consumer disputes? If so, which are the Disputes and what for?
The petition of complaint contains so many disputes but from the materials on record we find that the prime disputes are that in spite of having the provisions and in terms & conditions of the pledge loan the opposite parties No. l, 2 & 3 despite their approach denied denied to purchase their jute stored at the godown of the opposite party No,6 and the bank i.e. opposite party No.5 which has sanctioned the loan has not taken any initiative to sell the jute either to the JCIL or in the open market at that existing higher price of jute at the relevant period, The Godown-keeper also has not taken proper initiative to sell the jute. On the oilier hand he has given reminder to them to get the stored jute released by paying'the godown rent as the godown remained blocked for since long, due to storing of .the jute and no new goods could be stored there. Besides, the jute is also being damaged due to storing for a long time. Thereafter, the price of jute decreased and since August-October, 2010 till date those jutes are lying in the godowm of the opposite party No.6 for which the quality & quantity of the jute are reasonably deteriorating day by day, by nature. On the contrary, the opposite party No.5 Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank by issuing Notice is demanding the loan with interest. Both the bank interest and the godown rent are increasing due to elapse of time. They are, thus being deprived of their dues, due to the tag-of-war/rather moving as shuttle cock, by shifting their, responsibility/liability to the shoulder of one another, resulting to which they have been suffering at the behest of negligence of the opposite parties, for no fault of their own, and passing their days in agony being poor small farmers cannot be altogether denied.
Point No. 3. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
It has not been denied and/or disputed that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint case; but opposite party No.l to 3 & 5 disputed on the point that the O.P No.5 is not a "Consumer" of them rather he Is the king pin of all the instant four District Forum cases before this forum got filed, in connivance with the complainant/farmers, to evade the re-payment of the loan by drawing attention of the Forum based, on the Mission/Vision/Policy etc. of the Government of West Bengal and the Central Government, by filing various download papers, letters of different Organizations and In this aspect the Opposite Party No.5 Is the pioneer & king pin who has not only procured the Internal papers of various departments by letters and also by application of the RTI Act,2005 but also assailed in this case. We find no impediment in this aspect. We find that this Forum has got territorial jurisdiction, as well as cause of action, because some of the opposite parties have got their office/business/practical transactions took place within this District-Cooch Behar and those are on record. For the activities/role of the O.P.No.6 the jurisdiction of this Forum cannot wither away. On the other hand the case value (at valorem) stood at Rs.18,949,55/- I.e. within Rs.20,00,000/-. So, we have no hesitation to come to a decision that this forum has got both territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the case.
Point No. 4. Whether the case lacks In estoppels, non-Joinder/miss-joinder of any necessary party?
This forum is of the view that the case is not lacking in respective of estoppels as there is no order from any other court /Forum to stop the proceeding and /or any case appears to have been lying elsewhere and the necessary party, as to the necessary parties, in question in this proceeding and non-joinder/miss-joinder of any necessary party we find that the complainants have cited the parties based on the documents even if all the Opposite parties may be held always liable.
Point No. 5. Whether the Opposite Parties, cited In the complaint, rendered deficiency In service by their acts/omissions/negligence/violation of various Acts, Rules, Regulations, Provisions etc. if so, who are liable for such matters & to what extent?
The Opposite Parties cited in the complaint, rendered deficiency in service by their acts/omissions/negligence/violated various Acts/Rules/Regulations/Provisions etc. From the discussions herein before all of them are involved in such acts/omissions; but all are not liable for cognizable deficiency on the ground that the OP No,2, 3 & 4 (ex-parte) are the supervising authorities and are not directly implementing authority of the Vision/Mission et. but to cause the same implemented and for which the Regional Manager and others have issued directions/guiderlines to the Departmental Purchase Centers. And their involvement does not constitute liability as to compensate as such. Naturally, the complainants/farmers and/or the Proforma Opposite Party Nos.6 & 7 have tiled to get benefit for themselves (not being consumers in true sense of law); but for the farmers whom they have backed from behind from the very initial stage and it is transparent from the record that the Proforma O.P No. 6 being an Assistant Teacher of High School have been running the godown in association with NABARD and other Associations besides the JCIL and the bank in granting the bank loans as per various welfare legislation of the Govt. for the poor farmers as well for themselves. From the conduct of the Proforma O.P. Nos. 6 & 7 It appears that the O.P No.7 perhaps acted to assist the O.P. No. 6 as the Secretary of the Vetaguri Krishi Gramin Mazdoor Sangha and wrote letters, as it appears from the record. Hence, considering all aspects fact, circumstance, nature of the case, role played by the concerned parties, we find that it will be just and proper if the Opposite Party Nos.l & 5 are held liable jointly/severally. On the other hand, the complainants are also liable to the extent for not taking proper & adequate steps in respect of payment of loan & selling of the stored jute in time for which they became defaulter to the bank and by filling the case before the Forum, treating the same as Lottery Centre or Jackpot they cannot be allowed to avail the benefits and/or indulged in respect of claim of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation, Rs.5,00,000/- for so called breaking promise & deficiency of service besides Rs.50,000/- cost of proceedings against original claim of Rs.8,44965/- and presumably that amount also was presumably estimated value of the stored jute in the godown and not the assessed value). The provisions, under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Consumer Protection Rules,1987, West Bengal Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 and the Consumer Protection Regulations,2005 are obviously consumer friendly; but that does not mean that at the behest of their own wrong by not re-paying the pledge loan and even without re-paying a single rupee to avail the benefits of the Consumer Protection Act in the name of "Consumer". Hence they are also more or less liable for such negligence arose out of omission to act/respond in cooperation with the Opposite Party No.l & 5 with their shortest reach. In this aspect we find that at n glance the O.P.No.6 i.e. the Godown Owner Mr. Broja Gobinda Barmnn is apparently liable for compensation to the complainants as their goods were stored with him but factually and actually he does not appear to be liable on the grounds that he, as per the other OPs acted as a king pin behind the 4 cases being duly authorized by the complainants to take all measures to save them from the crisis when the bank and the JCIL reluctantly dealt with them, he came forward in rescue of the complainants.
Thus, we are of considered view that the complainants are liable to repay the pledge loan amount together with interest in terms with loan agreements to the OP No. 5 bank and the opposite party No, 5 in close liaison with O.P. No.6, under supervision of O.P. No.l are to dispose of the stored jute of the concerned complainants/farmers, in presence of the complainant No.l and /or her representative by auction/tender sale at the earliest possible opportunity of higher price of jute, after observing all the formalities: so that none of the parties endure unnecessary and excessive sufferings. The sale proceed should be property & proportionately accounted for and the bank loan with interest/ godown rent can be relinquished to the maximum extent and rest amounts if any becomes due, are paid up in accordance with the proposition herein above, contended, So that none can avail undue benefit in terms of the final order.
Point No. 6. Whether the complainants proved their case in respect to the alleged disputes beyond reasonable doubt?
From the discussion herein before, at length and the materials on record we are of the considered view that the complainants, though could prove their case but not prove it beyond all reasonable doubts and rather it is the opposite parties who have proved the case, presumably the Proforma Opposite Party No.6 who has proved case beyond reasonable doubt, in disguise, as Proforma Opposite Party wherein the other opposite parties also, by their written versions, evidence and arguments, in fact have proved the case, it is pertinent to mention that both the complainants and opposite parties were inclined to emphasize on the prevailing price rate of Jute per Quintal at the relevant period of Rabi Season 2010-2011 and the complainants besides opposite party No, 6 have banked upon the price rate of jute fixed by the concerned authority whereas the figure as to price rate of jute as to Assam of the same nature jute was around 50% of jute of West Bengal. None produced/adduced any evidence specifically as to the price rate of jute of Rabi season 2010-2011on it being harvested. Hence, we may put much reliance on the godown receipts vide Exhibits-2,2/1 to 2/37, wherein the market rate has been estimated and based on which the godown receipts were issued and further based on which value the bank had sanctioned the pledge loan to the farmers/complainants.
Point No.7 Whether the Proforma Opposite Parties No,6 & 7 are factually/actually Opposite Parties? If SO who s Opposite Parties?
From the discussion herein above it is though needless; but to decide as the opposite parties vehemently put aspersion against the O.P no 6 as the king pin and root of originating four cases before this Forum in connivance, against the O.P.No. 1 i.e. JCIL O.P. No.5, i.e., the bank, to avoid the re-payment of pledge loan and illegally gain at the behest Of the opposite parties by squeezing, in connivance with opposite party no,6 and we decide that the OP.No.6 is factually and actually not liable to pay any compensation to the complainants. We also have reason to believe that It is the O.P.No.6 who en-routed the entire episode, right from the harvesting season to till date, either as a social worker" i.e.O.P.No.76, by setting up the godown for storing agricultural products therein. The prime consideration is: it is not the person who did it; but it Is the prime consideration as to what was done. If it is legally done, pioneering should not be over-emphasized. Simultaneously, the O.P. Nos.l & 5, at the grass root level are the concerned Officers to implement the policy of the Govt. according to Act, Laws, Regulations, Circular, Directives to achieve the goal and for which employees are paid for. From the materials on record the poor farmers were not in a position to bell the cat and it has been done by the 0 P No.6; than what's wrong? The record shows that the 0,P.No.6-is entitled to get the Rent of the godown for keeping the jute at his godown and nothing else. On the other hand, the O.P. No.5 is the beneficiary in respect of providing pledge loan against the jute stored in the said godown by getting Interest on such loans. The O.P. No.1 i.e. The Departmental Purchase Center In-Charge (D.P.C), Jute Corporation of India Limited, Bhetaguri, P.O Bhetaguri, District- Cooch Behar, as it appears from the available documents fact & circumstances we find that they should have taken initiative to implement the Policy of the JCIL as well as of the Government of West Bengal & the Central Govt. under which the . JCIL functions in respect of procurement of jute form the farmers. From the letter of 26 persons of which some of the complainants are the signatories in the sa.ci joint petition dated 25-07.2011 reflects that in 2010 they stored their goods (jute) in the godown of Proforma O.P. No.6 and being the price of those jute lesser they could not sold It. They have written a letter on that date addressed to the Hon'ble Minister of Agriculture through the O.P. No.6. Not only that they have also entrusted the O.P. No.6 to take all necessary steps in future. The Proforma O.P No 6 also in the bunch of documents has tagged the carbon copy of the godown receipts in a Receipt Book (Receipt No.0032050), statement of place finance of godown receipt various letters, statements including carbon copy of letters dated 14-05-2012 and 21-06-2012 a dressed to the JCI Ltd., order of Asstt. Director (J.M.) dated 09-07-2012 to the Chairman cum M.D JCI Ltd. dated 09-07-2012, besides the letter of Company Secretary cum G M addressed to Secretary, Bhetaguri KrishI Gramin Mazdur Sangha dated 10-08-2012 and what not. Those documents mentioned In the list of Exhibits mostly relates to beneficiary efforts for the farmers/complainants in this case and In other cases. He has also left no stone unturned and issued reminders to the farmers/complainants who stored their jute in his godown, for payment of arrear godown rents, Accordingly, we may treat the Proforma Opposite Party No.6 as the guide and philosopher of the complainants and both actually and factually stood by the side of the complainants. The Proforma O.P.No.7 is none; but the leader of the KrishI Gramin Mazdoor Sangha and perhaps acted as per guidance of the Proforma O.P.No.6. He should be dismissed from this case.
Point No.8 Whether the Opposite Parties and/or jointly/severally with the Proforma Opposite Parties are liable to pay compensation to the complainants, if any. If so, who are to pay the same and to what extent and how?
In this respect we find that the Opposite Party No.1& 5 are liable for compensation and to pay the complainants jointly and/or jointly and/or severally to the extent of the amount as per Godown Receipt, the value of the jute of the relevant period with reasonable interest w. e. f. the date of storing of jute in the godown. Simultaneously the complainants, are also liable to re-pay the pledge loan with interest to the O.P.No.5 and also to pay the due Rents of the Godown to the O.P.No.6.
Point No.9 Whether the Complainants are entitled to get relief(s) as prayed for? If so how & to what extent and under what condition/conditions? '
The complainants are not entitled to get relief(s) as prayed for; but are entitled to get reasonable litigation cost/compensation etc. for their mental pain, agony and unnecessary harassment besides, refund of Rs.8,44965/- with interest at reasonable rate as if, the value of jute was in saving account. If so, It is to be compensated after sale of the stored jute in the godown as discussed above and as per the aforesaid observation subject to re-payment of adjustment of the amount accruable from the sale proceed of the stored jute which shall be accrued as per observation made here in before. No compensation in respect of so called breaking promise as there appeared no iota of evidence in this aspect save an except the negligence and or omission to act properly and adequately in conformity to the provisions and delaying the matter without cogent and sufficient ground.
ORDER
Therefore, it is ordered that the complaint case be and the same succeeds In part with litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/-each, Rs. 10,000/- each towards compensation for deficiency in service, Rs. 5,C00/-each for harassment, mental pain and agony of the complainants and entitled to get respective capital amount Rs. 8,44965/-with 12% w.e.f.. date of storing the jute in the godown, based on godown Receipts proportionately and In parity with the godown receipts, treating the same as investment. The O.P.No.l & 5 are directed to pay the ordered amounts to the Individual 10 complainants severally and/or jointly to i.e. Complainant No.(l) Tapan Kr. Barman for self, Complainants No.(2} Kaiiash Barman, (3) Parbati Barman, (4) Subaia Barman, (5) Kalicharan Barman, (6) Joykanta Barman, (7) Chura Barman (8) Satyen Barman, (9) Anukul Debnath, (10} Shikha Das (Chanda) within a period of 60 days from the date of order, failure of which the CPs. Shall pay @ Rs. 40/- for each day's delay i.e. w. e. f. the date of expiry of the aforesaid period of 60 days, by depositing the amount. If any accrued for such delay. The entire payments shall be made Jointly and/or severally within the aforesaid period. Simultaneously, the aforesaid ten Complainants are directed to re-pay the pledge loan in terms of the Loan Agreement forthwith and up to date, on completion of the auction sale of the entire concerned stored jute and adjustment of the accounts by negotiation and finalizatlon of the dues and In this regard the Complainants shall co-operate the Opposite Parties accordingly.
At the event of failure to comply with the order the Opposite Parties No.l & 5 as well as the ton Complainants shall jointly and/or severally shall pay cost @ Rs.20/-each and Rs.20/-each respectively for each day's delay, if caused, by either of the parties jointly and/or severally on expiry of the aforesaid 60 days by depositing the accrued amount if any by depositing In the State Consumer Welfare Fund, West Bengal.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates concerned by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, for information & necessary action."
This order was impugned by the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 before the State Commission. After re-assessing and re-appreciating the evidences on record and hearing the arguments of the parties, the State Commission dismissed the Appeal stating as under:
D e c i s i o n s w i t h R e a s o n s
During the course of arguments, Ld. Advocate of the appellant mentioned that here the complainants/respondents are different persons and they have no joint interest and for that reasons they had to file the case individually whereas without taking leave from the Ld. Forum, they have jointly filed the consumer complaint which is not acceptable under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The respondents countered this argument during the course of hearing the appeal that these complainants are consumers as per Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the CP Act, 1986. They are the beneficiaries of the service of the JCI of India and Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Bhetaguri Branch that the JCI is official agency of the Govt. of India who had to assist the jute cultivators in States where the crop is grown providing the minimum price support. And the petitioners/complainants were absolute cultivators and in order to save themselves from the distress sale of the crops, the Governments keep their in concurrence with the JCI, Bharatiya Gramin Bhandar, Bhetaguri Branch and Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank and under the policy of the scheme the complainants had stored their produced crops at goodown of Bhartiya Gramin Bhandar by pledging their jutes to obtain the loan and for the deliberate latches on the part of JCI, Bank and the owner of goodown, the bona fide consumers have sustained huge loss and for that reason, they have come to the arena of Consumer Fora and Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act supports their case. After going through entire record and after considering valuable arguments canvassed before this Commission it is well established that the complainants are well protected under the Consumer Protection Act to move their disputes before the Fora and during the pendency of the case JCI has approached before the Hon'ble High Court where Hon'ble High Court has categorically observed that the complainants of this case had the right and privilege under the arena of Consumer Protection Act and for that reason, Hon'ble Court has not interfered with the proceedings of the Ld. D.C.D.R.F. During the course of argument it is mentioned on the part of the Kshetriya Gramin Bank that the instant transaction of securing loan by the complainants from the bank was not a pledge loan and the Bank has nothing to do in this regard as because Bank was not empowered to arrange the sale out of the jute stored in the Bhetaguri Gramin Branch. Ld. Advocate of the JCI pointed out at the time of argument that the minimum support price was fixed for the area of Cooch Behar district Rs. 2,200/- per quintal while the complainant side relies upon the notification of Regional Manager, JCI, Cooch Behar dated 15/05/2012 which was completely related to the price settled at the rate of Rs. 3,800/- to 4,200/- per quintal only meant for commercial purposes. In this case, the complainants wanted to sell their jutes at the rate of Rs. 3,800/- to 4,200/- per quintal with the purpose of achieving the gains by doing the business of commercial purposes. And for that reason, this consumer complaint was bad in law and not sustainable under the provisions of CP Act, 1986. After the hearing of both sides this Commission also found that the Govt. of India has adopted the jute technology mission with market linkage of raw jute in order to assist jute growers by appropriate market support to enable them to get market price. But here in this case, very unfortunately, the authority concerned has not followed the mandates of jute technology mission and they have not given the safeguard of the interest of the cultivators. After going through the contention of both the parties, this Commission finds that the prime disputes of this case relates to the fact that in spite of having the provisions and in terms and conditions of the pledge loan, the Jute Corporation of India denied to purchase the jute of the complainants stored at the goodown of Bhetaguri Gramin Bhandar and the Bank who has sanctioned the loan did not take any proper initiative for selling out of the stored jute of the complainants. The goodown owner also has not taken proper care to sell out the jutes stored in his goodown.
On the other hand, it is also found that the complainants were also liable to the extent for not taking proper and adequate steps in respect of payment of loan and selling of the stored jute in time for which they have become defaulter to the bank. Ld. Forum also in its finding came to a conclusion that the complainants were liable to repay the pledge loan amount together with interest in terms of loan agreements to Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Kshetriya Gramin Bank was also directed to have a close liaison with the owner of Kshetriya Gramin Bhandar under the supervision of Jute Corporation of India to dispose of the stored jute at the earliest possible opportunity of higher price of jutes and the sale proceeds should be properly and proportionately accounted for and the Bank loan with interest and goodown rent can be relinquished to the maximum extent and rest amount, if any, became due, are to be paid up in accordance with the proposition. The observation of Ld. Forum appears to be very sound, proper and within the domain of Consumer Protection Act and no irregularity could be brought to the notice of this Commission by the appellant side during the course of hearing the appeal. So, the order of Ld. Forum appears to be very convincing and sustainable and does not attract any interference in the appellate stage.
Hence, the appeal devoids of any merit. In order to make the order executable, this Commission thinks it fit that the order of the Ld. Forum should be effected not from the date of passing the order dated 24/04/2014 but from the day of final order of this appeal so that the judgment-debtors shall not be overburdened.
Hence it is ordered: -
That the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest without any cost. The final order of Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Cooch Behar dated 24/04/2014 in reference to CC/21/2013 is hereby confirmed subject to enforcement of the order to be commenced from the day of receiving the copy of final order of this Commission by the parties to the case."
This order is impugned before me by the Petitioner. The same arguments have been raised before me as were raised before the Foras below. All these arguments have been dealt with elaborately and in details by the Foras below and the findings have been given.
I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the file.
The revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is very limited. It can interfere with the concurrent findings of the Foras below only when there is perversity in the order or where there is a wrong exercise of jurisdiction. A finding can be said to be perverse when it is based on evidences which do not form part of the record or where the material piece of evidence, on record has not been considered. It has been so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - (2011) 11 SCC 269" has held as under:
"23. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two Fora".
Again in "Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286," the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the same principle and has held as under:
"17. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons."
In T. Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Through L.Rs. and Ors. Vs. N.Madhava Rao and Ors. decided on 05.04.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3408 of 2019, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"12. When the two Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact against the Plaintiffs, which are based on appreciation of facts and evidence, in our view, such findings being concurrent in nature are binding on the High court. It is only when such findings are found to be against any provision of law or against the pleading or evidence or are found to be perverse, a case for interference may call for by the High Court in its second appellate jurisdiction."
In the present case, the Petitioner was the Jute Corporation of India and it was assigned by the Government of India with the duty to purchase the jute from the farmers @ MSP rate. The Petitioner has itself admitted in para 11 of their written statement that they have been purchasing the jute every year and they had purchased huge quantity of jute from the farmers of the locality and the surrounding nearby village. Their contention is that the Complainants had never approached them for selling their jute produce. However, the evidences on record, as discussed by the Foras below, show otherwise. The Complainants did approach the Petitioner for the sale of their jute produce but it appears that they were not given the appropriate price of the jute. The contention of the Petitioner is that the MSP of the jute during the relevant time, i.e., 2010-2011 was Rs. 2,200/-. However, no document to this effect has been produced by the Petitioner. Though the Petitioner states that they had purchased huge quantity of jute from the other farmers, however, the price at which the jute was purchased is neither disclosed nor any document has been placed on record to show such a price. The contention of the Complainant was that the purchase price of the jute was Rs. @ Rs. 3,800/- to 4,200/- per quintal in the year 2010-2011 and for that they have relied on the letter dated 15.05.2012 of the Petitioner. The argument of the learned Counsel that it was a commercial price and not the MSP has already been dealt with and rejected. It is also argued before me that this letter was issued in respect to a query regarding the commercial price of the jute. There is nothing in the letter which can suggest that the prices mentioned therein were commercial prices. The Petitioner, therefore, has not placed on record any document which could show that the purchase price of the jute @ Rs. 3,800/- to 4,200/- per quintal was a commercial price and not the price at which the Petitioner was procuring jute from the farmers. The farmers continued to approach the Petitioner for selling their produce to the Petitioner who was authorised to purchase. Therefore, the cause of action was a continuous one and the Complaint was not barred by limitation.
The findings of the Foras below which are concurrent in nature are based on cogent evidences on record and there is no perversity in the impugned order.
I found no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order. The Petitioner has also failed to point out that the Foras below have acted without jurisdiction. The present Revision Petitions have no merit and the same are dismissed in limine.
Copy of this order be sent to the Foras below as well as to the Complainants.
Copy of the order be placed on each file.