BEFORE THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI 

P. N. MISRA, Senior Advocate, and A. MAHAPATRA and S. MISRA, Advocates, with him, for the petitioner. 

Nemo, for the respondent. 

ORDER 

S. P. BAGLA, MEMBER - This revision petition is against the order, dated 27.6.96 of the State Commission, Orissa. Briefly, the facts of this case are that Shri Sridhar Sahoo, the respondent No. 1 before us entered into an agreement with Sakthi Sugars Ltd., who are the petitioners, for growing sugarcane with required assistance both in cash and kind from them. This said sugarcane was to be sold to the petitioner. The petitioner was also required to help him to get loan from the Society and the Bank for diesel pump set and dug well. It appears that Shri Sahu did grow sugarcane in the year 1990-91 and sold it in April and May, 1991, to the petitioner company. Next year in 1991-92, he could not grow as much sugargane as he expected for want of adequate moisture. He alleged that since the petitioner company did not deposit the margin money with the Society, the loan sanctioned for the dug well, etc., could not be released to him. 

2. The District Forum after going through the facts of the case as well as documents produced before them, came to a view that the petitioner company was deficient in service in the sense that they did not deposit the margin money with the society and because of this failure, Shri Sahu could not get the loan for dug well and the pump set. Absence of dug well and pump set resulted in a poor crop which he sold earlier than the due date to the company in the year 1991-92. The case of Shri Sahu was that if he had adequate irrigation, the crop would have been better and he could have earned larger profit. 

3. Holding the petitioner company liable for deficiency in service, the District Forum awarded Rs. 4,000 for the poor yield in the year 1991-92. The appeal filed by the petitioner company was dismissed on the ground that they could not explain the delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission. Even on merits, the State Commission held that the petitioner company was negligent in depositing the margin money. 

4. We have given very careful thought to the fact of this case and also ruling cited before us and reported as (1994) III CPJ 163 (NC) in the case of Fruit and Vegetable Project, New Delhi and another v. N. Sankar Reddy and others. The moot question in this case is whether a seller can claim the status of a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. It appears to us that the State Commission ignored this point altogether and held the petitioner company responsible for failing to deposit the margin money which ultimately resulted in the inadequacy of irrigation for the sugarcane crop of the respondent. Be that as it may, the question of not depositing the margin money in time is a matter of contract between the two parties, and cannot be a subject of a consumer dispute as it involves the issue of specific performance. The status of Shri Sahu, the respondent No. 1 before us, is that of a seller and as has been held in the cited case, a seller cannot claim the status of a consumer. We therefore, are of the considered view that the State Commission and the District Forum erred in ignoring the status of the respondent before us. Therefore, we allow the revision petition. The order passed by the District Forum as well as the order of the State Commission is set aside, and the complaint filed by the respondent stands dismissed. There is no order as to costs.