AMIT STEELS vs HARYANA STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES

THIS appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Ambala rejecting the complaint on the threshold ground that the complainant did not come within the ambit of the definition of a ''consumer''.

SINCE we are inclined to affirm the aforesaid preliminary jurisdictional issue, it is unnecessary to advert to the merits. Suffice it to mention that the appellant firm as its name indicates is a commercial concern, which had applied for the booking of iron and steel materials with the respondent Haryana State Small Industries and Export Corporation. Pursuant to that application, they also deposited some earnest money, therefor. The primal grievance spelt out in the complaint was that the deliveries of the material had not been made by the respondent Corporation in strict accordance with the alleged terms and conditions of the contract. The somewhat curious relief claimed in the consumer jurisdiction was that the respondent be directed to supply the raw material at old rates and the supplies in future be regularised, with payment of interest on earnest money and compensation for the supposed violation of the terms and conditions. In resolutely defending the complaint, the respondents took up the threshold preliminary objection that the complainant did not even remotely come within the ambit of a consumer under the Act. Equally it was pointed out that the alleged purchase of raw material was for a commercial purpose and this would further render the complaint as non maintainable. On merits a very comprehensive reply was also filed to controvert the allegations.

The District Forum rightly adverted to the preliminary issue of maintainability. In a considered and comprehensive order, which refers to the relevant statutory provisions, it came to the following conclusions:- (i) that the transaction was not a completed sale, but only an agreement to sell. (ii) that the reliefs sought were beyond that pale of Section 14 of the Act. (iii) that on merits the trial would involve complicated questions of intricate accounting between the parties and the adducing of a huge amount of evidence which was in-appropriate in a summary jurisdiction.

MR. S.R. Bansal, the learned Counsel for the complainant was hard-put to lay any meaningful challenge to the somewhat impeccable order of the District Forum. It was sought to be contended that the transaction was a completed sale and the merits of the controversy should have been gone into. We are unable to find any modi-cum of merit in the aforesaid submission. What first meets the eye is the fact that in the complaint not a word or a hint was made about any defect in the goods sought to be purchased. It is somewhat elementary that the cause of action with regard to the supply of goods in the consumer jurisdiction arises primarily from their defective nature. That is not even the case laid far from the same being so established.

AGAIN no meaningful challenge could be laid to the finding of the District Forum that the basic grievance of the appellant was the non-delivery of goods under the alleged agreement. That being so the District Forum appears to be right in its conclusion that the purchase having not been completed, the transaction was yet at the stage of an agreement to sell and the consumer jurisdiction cannot be used for a claim of specific performance. Equally, we are inclined to the view that the curious reliefs sought in the prayer clause of the complaint appear on the face of it to be beyond the scope of Section 14. Mr. Bansal even did not care to assail the other finding that the merits of the dispute require intricate issue of accounts between the parties and the recording of detailed and comprehensive evidence. We consequently, have no hesitation in affirming the order of the District Forum. For the fore-going reasons, this appeal must fail and is hereby dismissed. However, we would not wish to burthen die appellant with any costs. Appeal dismissed.