First Appeal Nos. 2186 to 2192 of 2010. Case: M.P. Rajya Beej Pramanikaran Sanstha Vs Surendra Dutt Tripathi and Ors.. Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberFirst Appeal Nos. 2186 to 2192 of 2010
CounselFor Appellant: Vikas Rai, Advocate and For Respondents: Sudhir Pandey, Advocate
JudgesRakesh Saksena, J. (President) and Neerja Singh, Member
IssueConsumer Law
CitationIV (2015) CPJ 13
Judgement DateSeptember 03, 2015
CourtMadhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Order:

Neerja Singh, Member

  1. These 7 appeals are by the opposite party No. 2, the Seeds Certification Agency, aggrieved by the order dated 17.8.2010, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Damoh. As the orders are similar, the cases are being decided by a common order. For convenience, the facts are taken from Appeal No. 2186/10, unless otherwise specified. The brief facts of the case, as portrayed by the respondent-complainant, are that in the year 2009, he sowed the Kharif crop of Soyabean under a scheme for production of Soyabean seeds. He paid Rs. 61,500 for the seeds, Rs. 9,350 as registration fees and Rs. 966 as service tax to the respondent No. 2, M.P. State Seeds and Farm Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Seed Corporation). Along with the registration fees he gave the form B-1 giving details about his land. After the harvest, when he went to deposit the Soyabean crop, the Seed Corporation refused to take it on the ground that his registration could not be done with the appellant. No reason was given for not getting the registration done even though he sent a legal notice on 26.10.2009. Alleging deficiency in service, he has sought compensation.

  2. The Seed Corporation has raised the objection that the complaint is not maintainable as it is a commercial dispute. They aver that the respondent-complainant sowed the seeds on 16.7.2009. Even 25 days after the sowing he did not provide them the certified copy of form B-1. However, despite incomplete documents they submitted the registration fees to the appellant and vide letter dated 11.8.2009 sought a week's time from the appellant for submission of the documents, vide letter dated 16.8.2009 they requested the appellant to register the name of the respondent-complainant, but they refused to do so on the ground that the last date for registration was 31.7.2009. They allege that the registration could not be done due to the fault of the respondent-complainant himself.

  3. The appellant states that no registration fees was deposited in their office by the respondent-complainant and he is not their consumer. As per the conditions, the certified copy of the land records should have been deposited prior to the last date, to get the crop registered. In 2009, the Government of M.P. had fixed the last date of registration of Kharif crop as 31.7.2009. The Seed Corporation sent the proposal for registration on 18.8.2009, hence it was not accepted.

  4. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT