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 dismissed.;