KARNATAKA CO-OP. OIL SEEDS GROWERS FEDERATION LTD. vs OMEGA AG. SEEDS (INDIA) LTD.

IN this complaint, under Section 17 r/w Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant has sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 16,13,550/ with interest thereon from the opposite party M/s. Omega Ag. Seeds (INdia) Ltd. The complainant is a co-operative society, known as M/s. Karnataka Co operative Oil seeds Growers Federation Ltd., and the opposite party is M/s. Omega Ag. Seeds (INdia) Ltd.

IT is the case of the complainant that the opposite party supplied 7.308 M.T. of Mega 363 sunflower seeds as per the terms and conditions to the complainant, that is, to the 3 units of the complainant''s federation that is, Raichur unit, Hospet unit and Hubli unit, as per the directions of the complainant. The complainant had made the payment of a sum of Rs. 16,13,550/ to the opposite party for supply of the said sunflower seeds. The complainant was able to sell to the agriculturists about 1.7 M.T. of seeds and the balance of 5.6 M.T. of seeds could not be sold. The agriculturists who had sown the said seeds in their lands found the said seeds did not germinate, so the complainant asked the opposite party to depute their representatives for ensuring germination, but the opposite parties failed to depute any representative and it also failed to take back the remaining stock of the seeds from the complainant. The opposite party also failed to pay back to the complainant the amounts so collected from it. The complainant, on the basis of these averments, sought the refund of the amount of Rs. 16,13,550/ paid by it to the opposite party with interest thereon. The opposite party filed its version and admitted the fact that it had sold the sunflower seeds to the complainant as averred by the complainant, but it denied that the said seeds were in any way defective. The opposite party further averred that having regard to the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the complainant cannot be classified as a ''consumer'' and so the complaint was untenable.

Both the parties were heard on the preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the complaint. We perused the pleadings of the parties.

THE complainant, at para 11 of the complaint, has averred thus: "11. THE opposite parties supplied 7.308 MT of seeds as per the complainants terms and conditions. But out of 7.308 MT the complainant was able to sell to the agriculturists about 1.7 MT and the balance of 5.6 MT had not been liquidated due to the failure of the opposite parties deputing their representative to Raichur Union for ensuring germination and liquidation of stock vide Para No. 9 of Condition (c) supra."

THE complainant, at para 21 of its complaint, further stated thus: "21. It is submitted that the complainant made payment of Rs. 16,13,550/ to the opposite parties through its three cheques for supply of Mega 363 sunflower quality seeds and of good performance and yield as held out by them, and in the brochure followed by their time to time persuasion and even replaced seeds failed in germination and had not yielded assured quantity and thus causing to the agriculturists heavy losses, injury and inconvenience"

6.This would go to show that the complain ant had purchased the seeds for resale. As a matter of fact, as per his own averments at para 11 referred above, the complainant had sold to the agriculturists about 1.7MT of seeds. Having regard to these facts, in our opinion, the complainant cannot be classified as a ''consumer''. 7. THE expression ''consumer'' has been defined under Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the C.P. Act, as under: "2(1)(d) ''consumer'' means any person who- (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any sys tem of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or"

It clearly stipulates a person who obtains goods for resale cannot be classified as a ''consumer''. THE National Commission, while considering such of the facts in Shri Lakshmi Narayan Rice Mill v. THE Food Corporation of India, reported in I (1996) CPJ 161 (NC)=1996 (4) CTJ page 512, observed thus: "THE dispute raised by the complainant is not a consumer dispute. Admittedly it purchased huge quantity of rice. It could not be for self-consumption. It must have been purchased for resale. THErefore, the complainant cannot be regarded as a ''consumer'' and, therefore, it cannot claim any relief under the Act. This original petition is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 3,000/."

In the present case, as referred above, the complainant has specifically stated at para 11, that it had sold certain quantity of seeds purchased by it from the opposite party to the various agriculturists. THErefore, the purchase made by the complainant from the opposite party was for resale. So this dispute cannot be classified as a ''consumer'' dispute. So having regard to these facts, we are constrained to hold that this complaint is untenable. ORDER In the result, therefore, this complaint fails and it is dismissed as untenable. THE parties are directed to pay and bear their own costs of this proceeding. Complaint dismissed.