BIHAR STATE DAIRY CORPN. PATNA vs ABDUL WAJID

THIS appeal is directed against order dated 15th April, 93 passed by the District Forum, Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No. 232 of 92 in which the appellant here was the opposite party and the Respondent here was the complainant before the District Forum.

THE relevant facts of the case may be briefly stated. THE complainant was asked by the opposite party by letter dated 10.8.93 to supply printed round tin containers for packing of Ghee and according to the terms of contract the full payment of the price of the materials supplied by the complainant to the opposite party was to be made within seven days of the receipt of the materials. Accordingly tin containers were supplied by the complainant to the opposite party. But the payment was not made by the opposite party in accordance with the terms of the contract. Out of the total price of those tins supplied by the complainant, Rs. 42,000/- was given to the opposite party on 31.5.90 and the remaining amount of Rs. 42,142/- was paid to the complainant on 24.6.91. THE complainant has under the circumstances claimed interest on the amount paid as compensation for loss sustained by him due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The claim of the complainant was objected to by the opposite party before the District Forum on the ground that complainant is not a consumer within the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the Act) and therefore his case is not maintainable under the Act.

The District Forum however has ordered for payment of interest at the rate of 15% from 26.5.94 on the amounts paid till the date on which they were paid and also compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for the mental angiush and physical exertion which the complainant had to undergo due to non-payment of the dues by the opposite party.

AT the very outset we would like to mention that the case of the complainant is not maintainable because the. Complainant is not a consumer within Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. It is the opposite party who had given contract to the complainant for the supply of the tin containers. The complainant had not hired the services of the opposite party and therefore he cannot be a consumer under the Act. Hence we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order. The complaint is hereby dismissed. There is however no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.