PRADESHIK COOPERATIVE FEDERATION LTD. vs RAJENDRA PRASAD BIJALWAN

THIS is an appeal by the Managing Director, Pradeshik Cooperative Federation Ltd. against the order dated 25.5.1993 passed by the District Forum, Pauri, Garhwal whereby the complaint of the complainant was allowed.

THE brief facts of the case are that there was some tender for sale of damaged sugar by the appellant. THE complainant was also a tenderer. His tender was not accepted. But however there was negotiation that the sugar shall be sold @ Rs. 830 per quintal. On 2.9.1992 the complainant gave an application to the appellant for calculating net weight of sugar before the sugar is delivered to the complainant but instead of net weight sugar, the appellant also calculated the weight of the bag along with sugar. It was alleged that the bag weight was 5 kgs. THE complainant has purchased 116 bags of sugar, thus he has got 580 kgs. of bag @ sugar. He has therefore suffered a loss of Rs. 4,814. The appellant filed written statement and alleged that the rate was negotiated @ Rs. 830 per quintal including the weight of the bag.

The learned Forum after hearing the parties allowed the complaint, against which order the present appeal has been filed.

WHEN the appeal was received in this Commission, notices were issued to the parties. Sh. Harshmani Tailwal appeared for the appellant on 20.1.2005. He had an authority from the appellant. He has filed the authority letter dated 19.1.2005 issued by the U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. to pairvi the case. Sh. Harshmani Tailwal took date of 7.3.2005 but did not appear on 7.3.2005. On 7.3.2005 the complainant alone appeared and started arguing that he is being harassed from 1993 itself. He has rushed to Lucknow Commission for a number of dates. He may be heard on merits. Looking the age of the complaint and appeal and also the fact that the complainant is running pillar to post unnecessarily, although he has received the decretal amount in 1994 itself and the appeal has become infructuous, we proceeded to hear the respondent ex parte on merits. We have examined the facts of the case. The complainant has received a consumer licence. There is no pleading that this was a commercial dispute. Even otherwise he has purchased the sugar for his self-employment for preparation of toffee etc. Therefore also it was a consumer dispute. In the agreement there is reference to the bag but there is no reference that one quintal of sugar is exclusive of gunny bag as well. The complainant has definitely given an application that he should not be charged the price of the bag. The learned Forum has held that there was no sale of the sugar on the basis of the tender, it was in view of the negotiation between the parties. Therefore the terms and conditions of the tender shall not be applicable to the facts of the present case.

WE do not find any force in the appeal, however in the Lucknow Commission the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs. 15,000 by miscellaneous application. He did not file any appeal himself. There is no provision of counter-claim in an appeal. In the absence of any appeal by the complainant, his compensation cannot be enhanced. The complainant has also admitted that he has received the actual decretal amount. In view of what has been said above, the appeal has become infructuous. ORDER The appeal is hereby dismissed and disposed of as infructuous. Cost of the appeal shall be easy. Appeal dismissed.