The District Consumer Commission was dealing with a plea of a apple grower. (AI-generated Image)The Shimla District Consumer Commission has directed apple buyers and a cold store operator to pay Rs 3.02 lakh owed to a Himachal Pradesh grower for 352 boxes of apples, finding deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The apple buyers withheld the apple grower’s money after he supplied the agreed amount of apple boxes.A bench of president Baldev Singh and Nidhi Sharma also awarded Rs 30,000 as compensation for mental harassment and agony, along with Rs 20,000 litigation costs.“The complainant, through evidence on record, has been able to prove his case against opposite parties so far; deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties are concerned regarding non-payment of the remaining amount of Rs 3.02 lakh, and accordingly, the present complaint deserves to be allowed,” the commission said on August 13.The order noted that the complainant is also entitled to compensation on account of mental harassment and agony along with litigation charges.352 apple boxes, Rs 3.02 lakh dueThe complainant has an apple orchard and produces apples for his livelihood. He depended on his horticulturist and agriculturist for produce as well as the apple crop.Also Read | Cold storage sells farmer’s 48,000 kg carrots without consent, ordered to pay Rs 31.5 lakhAccording to the complainant, in July, 2017, the opposite parties contacted him as well as other residents of the area for the sale of their apples to them, and assured them a good price for their apple crop. The opposite parties also informed the complainant that they were from Ludhiana, Punjab, and they also had a cold store in Solan district in Himachal Pradesh. In the opposite parties, one person posed himself as a managing director and another posed himself as an agent.The complainant supplied a total of 352 apple boxes in two shipments, containing 156 boxes for Rs 2.41 lakh and 196 boxes for Rs 1.60 lakh, totaling Rs 4.02 lakh. The complainant claimed that he received only Rs 1 lakh into his account, leaving an unpaid balance of Rs 3.02 lakh.Story continues below this adHe alleged that he approached the opposite parties several times, but he did not receive any payment, and when the complainant, along with other apple growers, went to the cold store, they were turned away by security personnel.The opposite parties denied purchasing any apples from the complainant or authorising the cold store to do so. They alleged the challans/receipts were fabricated in collusion between the complainant and the cold store.The cold store operator argued that he acted strictly as a local agent for the opposite party to collect consignments, negotiate prices, and send them for approval.Buyers attempted to shift responsibility: OrderThe commission observed that the procuring opposite parties took contradictory pleas by claiming no dealing with the complainant while simultaneously arguing he was not a “consumer”. Since the complainant’s apple crop was purchased by the cold store operator on behalf of the other opposite parties and partial payment was made, a consumer–service provider relationship was legally established.Story continues below this adThe commission noted that the complainant supplied his apple crop under challans issued in the name of A R Transmissions Pvt Ltd and the opposite party failed to produce any evidence to prove their claim that these documents were fabricated.The ruling said that the opposite parties attempted to shift full responsibility onto the cold store operator through total denial. However, they failed to rebut his specific plea that he acted solely as an agent collecting crops for the other opposite parties.TakeawayThe judgment reinforces that growers can seek consumer protection when buyers fail to pay for agricultural produce. It also shows that companies cannot avoid liability by shifting responsibility to their agents, particularly when evidence establishes that the crop was purchased on their behalf and payment remained due.Consumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Himachal Pradesh: 1800-180-8087) or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.Story continues below this adDon’t miss out on these stories:Tubewell left dry for 3 years, farmer wins Rs 50,000 against Punjab Power CorporationTelangana farmer finally gets Rs 80,000 insurance payout 10 years after buffalo’s deathJourney ‘disrupted’ due to farmer protests, man wins Rs 2 lakh payout from RailwaysJagriti Rai works with The Indian Express (Digital), where she writes from the vital intersection of law, gender, and society. Working on a dedicated legal desk, she focuses on translating complex legal frameworks into relatable narratives, exploring how the judiciary and legislative shifts empower and shape the consciousness of citizens in their daily lives. Expertise Socio-Legal Specialization: Jagriti brings a critical, human-centric perspective to modern social debates. Her work focuses on how legal developments impact gender rights, marginalized communities, and individual liberties. Diverse Editorial Background: With over 4 years of experience in digital and mainstream media, she has developed a versatile reporting style. Her previous tenures at high-traffic platforms like The Lallantop and Dainik Bhaskar provided her with deep insights into the information needs of a diverse Indian audience. Academic Foundations: Post-Graduate in Journalism from the Indian Institute of Mass Communication (IIMC), India’s premier media training institute. Master of Arts in Ancient History from Banaras Hindu University (BHU), providing her with the historical and cultural context necessary to analyze long-standing social structures and legal evolutions. ... Read More