Irshad Hussain, President - (1.) IN this consumer complaint, we sought a response from the opposite parties regarding the admissibility of the consumer complaint under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Having heard Sh. Surendra Singh Rana, proprietor of the complainant proprietorship firm and the learned Counsel for the opposite parties, we are of the considered view that the dispute raised is not a consumer dispute and, therefore, the complaint cannot legally be admitted for decision on merits, for the reasons to follow.
(2.) IN the consumer complaint, following reliefs have been claimed: "(a) Directing IDPL Virbhadra, Rishikesh to pay the sum of Rs. 28,98,000 to the complainant as principal amount due towards supply of calcium chloride. (b) For directing IDPL Virbhadra, Rishikesh to pay interest @ 9% per annum which comes out to be Rs. 56,59,920. (c) For directing to pay Rs. 5,00,000 as damages caused to the complainant for loss of his business and property of the firm due to auction by U.P.F.C. (d) For directing to pay Rs. 3,00,000 for mental agony caused to the complainant. (e) For directing to pay Rs. 5,00,000 for loss of health to the complainant and his treatment due to the loss caused to the complainant as a result of unfair trade practice/tactics of delaying/not making payments to the creditors of IDPL Virbhadra, Rishikesh and due to this policy adopted by the peak officers, IDPL Virbhadra, Rishikesh did not pay the complainant and others."
(3.) AVERMENTS of the complaint make it abundantly clear that the complainant had been supplying calcium chloride (Technical and CP grade) to the opposite parties. The price of the product supplied from the year 1989 to 1990, has not been paid. These averments and the reliefs claimed, clearly indicate that the claim pertains to the price of the goods supplied and per se, the complainant do not fall under the category of "consumer" as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Complainant has also averred that on the recommendations of the Chief Engineer of the opposite parties, the raw material for manufacture of the product to be supplied to the opposite parties, had been procured by the complainant from DCM Chemical Works, New Delhi. Complainant argued that DCM Chemical Works, New Delhi had made deficiency in the supply of the raw material, as a result of which, complainant had not been able to manufacture the product, to be supplied to the opposite parties and since the deficiency in service has been made by the said dealer of the opposite parties, the complaint was legally maintainable under the provisions of the Act. We see no merit in the submission in view of the fact that for the supply of the raw material by the DCM Chemical Works, New Delhi, a mere recommendation had been made by the officer of the opposite parties vide letter dated 4.7.1978 (Paper No. 15) and, as such, the DCM Chemical Works, New Delhi, not being an ancillary unit or dealer of the opposite parties, the complainant could not have alleged that on account of deficiency in service by the said supplier, the product could not be manufactured for regular supply to the opposite parties. The transaction between the complainant and the supplier of the raw material to it, has been an independent transaction and in connection with the opposite parties neither have any financial interest, nor any contractual obligation, so as to maintain supply of the raw material to the complainant. In other words, by alleging some deficiency on the part of the supplier of the raw material, the complainant cannot claim that the deficiency in service has been made by the opposite parties and the claim against them has legally become entertainable under the provisions of the Act. It is well settled that the Act provides for "business to consumer" disputes and not for "business to business" disputes and on this principle also, the complaint could not have been legally admitted for decision on merit under the provisions of the Act. The decisions in the matter of Sonal Matapurkar and Ors. v. S. Nigalingappa Institute of Dental Science and Anr., II (1997) CPJ 5 (NC)=(1998) NCJ 181 (NC) and George Thomas and Others v. Ghaziabad Development Authority and Others, I (1999) CPJ 18 (NC)=(1998) NCJ 685 (NC), pressed into service by the complainant, have no bearing at all to the facts of the case and cannot be taken to help the cause of the complainant.;