ARANTANGI CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD Vs. V.KARUPPIAH
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Arantangi Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd
Click here to view full judgement.
K.SAMPATH, J. -
(1.) These two appeals arise out of the decision of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Pudukkottai, in OP No.22/2003 on its file. The
complainant is the appellant in AP No.155/2005 while the opposite parties
2 and 3 are the appellants in AP No.322/2005. The facts necessary for the
disposal of these appeals are as under: - The Government planned to start
a Co-operative Sugar Mill in Arantangi. Cane growers in the area were
admitted as members. The complainant remitted Rs.10,000/- as share
capital and Rs.100/- as entrance fee. The proposal did not take off and
the complainant sought refund of the money paid as share capital which
was not given. The complaint therefore came to be filed for a direction
to the opposite parties 1 to 4 to refund the amount of Rs.10,100/- with
18% interest from 21/1/1991 and pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for
mental agony suffered by him.
(2.) The 1st opposite party filed a version stating that the complainant
was not a consumer; that the 1st opposite party did not receive any
consideration or entrance fee from the complainant. The 1st opposite
party was not entrusted with or given any administrative sanction by the
Government of Tamil Nadu for the establishment of a Sugar Mill in
Arantangi Taluk. The complainant issued a notice through Advocate on
2/8/2002. The complaint came to be filed beyond the period of limitation.
In any event, the 1st opposite party did not promise or inform the
complainant that he would establish a Sugar Mills in Arantangi Taluk.
There was no deficiency in service. Suitable reply had been given to the
lawyers notice. The complaint was bad for mis-joinder of parties.
(3.) The 2nd opposite party filed a version stating inter-alia as follows:
- As per the directions of the Government of Tamil Nadu and as the
controlling authority of Sugar Mills in the State, cane growers were
admitted as members. The complainant had voluntarily remitted Rs.10,000/-
as share capital and Rs.100/- as entrance fee. However, the central
financial institution informed that it was unable to give financial
assistance for establishing a sugar mill at Arantangi because there was
no water potentiality and also the cane development in and around that
area was not proper. Based on the report of the central financial
institution, the Government did not pursue further action for
establishing the co-operative sugar mills at Arantangi and no further
action was taken. Regarding refund of share capital paid, the provisions
of the Co-operative Societies Act were applicable. The mill was under
liquidation and an Official Liquidator has been appointed to discharge
the liabilities and realise the assets. Only the Co-operative Societies
Act would apply. The complaint was bad for non-joinder of necessary
parties. The complainant was not a consumer. The complaint has to be
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.