B.C. Kandpal, J - (1.) This is complainant's appeal under Sec. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 06.12.2007 passed by the District Forum, Nainital, thereby dismissing his consumer complaint No. 54 of 2006. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant is a farmer and has 5 acres of land. The sugarcane grown by the complainant is sent to D.S.M. Sugar Mills, Kashipur through Ganna Vikas Parishad, Kashipur and the price whereof is paid by the opposite parties through Cane Co -operative Society. In the year 2005, the farmers started growing less sugarcane because there were certain problems in getting the payment. It was alleged that the opposite parties floated a scheme through Ganna Parishad and Ganna Samiti of providing seeds to the farmers, so that they can grow the sugarcane of superior quality and supply the same to the factory of the opposite parties. It was also alleged that the Parishad asked the complainant to sow the seeds in 4 acres of land and the seeds were supplied to the complainant in the second week of April, 2005. The complainant was assured that the seeds will yield good result and, as such, the complainant got his 4 acres of land ready for sowing the seeds and spent a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ - in getting the land ready. It was further alleged that there was low yield upto one month. The complainant wrote a letter dated 15.05.2005 to the Senior Sugarcane Development Officer, Kashipur for inspection of his field, wherein he stated that there is only 10% growth of seeds, but the said officer stated after inspection of the field that there is 13% - 14% growth. The complainant brought the matter to the knowledge of the opposite parties, but the opposite parties did not take any action. The complainant prayed with the opposite parties for granting him compensation, but to no avail. Thereafter alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Nainital.
(2.) The opposite party Nos. 1 to 5 filed joint written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the brother and son of the complainant were supplied 139.29 quintal sugarcane seeds on 12.04.2005; that no seeds were supplied to the complainant; that in case there is low yield, the liability is that of Ganna Vikas Parishad; that no sugarcane was supplied by the complainant to the Mill; that the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.
(3.) The opposite party No. 6 filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that seeds were sold to other farmers as well, but no complaint was received; that the letter sent by the complainant for compensation was forwarded to D.S.M. Sugar Mills, but no reply was received by them; that the consumer complaint is not based on facts and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.;