C.Chandran vs M.P.Ramachandran

BY this order we are dealing with the preliminary objection raised by Counsel for the opposite party with regard to the maintainability of the complaint before this Commission. We shall briefly summarise the facts of the case.

THE complainant Mr. C. Chandran states that he has filed this complaint in a dual capacity as the President of All Kerala Superwhite Manufacturer''s Association and as an individual consumer of the opposite party''s product by name ''Ujala''. THE main allegations in the complaint against the opposite party are the following: (1) THE opposite party has been adopting unfair trade practice restrained by the law. (2) THE opposite party, by his offensive advertisement wantonly and maliciously put stinking slur upon other reputed whiteners or superwhites popular in the market with a view to capturing the entire superwhite market and fish the innocent consumer public for undue profit and advantage. (3) Bogus address is given by the opposite party to his establishments to cheat the responsible departments such as Sales Tax, Income Tax Central Excise etc. By the raw materials proclaimed by the opposite party he has been evading heavy tax by suppression of taxable raw materials used in the combination. (4) By false and mala fide advertisements, the opposite party confuses the consumer public and wrongfully keeps them away from buying standard quality brand superwhite. (5) By the unfair trade practice continuously exercised by the opposite party, complainant has in this year itself incurred a loss of not less than one lakh rupees in his business in superwhite.

The opposite party in their detailed versions states that the complaint is not a consumer grievance at all. In their lengthy objections they denied all the allegations made by the complainant against them. The opposite party has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition before this Commission. The opposite party raised the objection on the following grounds: 1. The opposite party is quite doubtful whether the State Commission can take cognizance of the suit, because the Commission stands for the redressal of the grievances of the consumers and the complaint filed in this case is not a consumer grievance. 2. The complainant is not a consumer of Ujala. There is no statement that the complainant has purchased Ujala even once. 3. In the complaint it is mentioned that the complainant is the President of All Kerala Superwhite Manufacturer''s Association. So, the complainant is a manufacturer of Superwhite and the basis of this complaint is not a consumer grievance, but a trade rivalry between the complainant and opposite party.

There is no prayer to redress the grievance of a consumer and no proper compensation is claimed.

THE complementary replication cannot be regarded as a complaint. 4. Now the main issues to be decided in this case are whether the complainant is a consumer as defined under Sec. 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, whether the complaint is a consumer grievance and whether the case is maintainable before this Commission. As such we are not going through the merits of the other aspects. 5. Sec. 2(1)(d)(i) reads thus, "Consumer means any person who buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such persons, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose."

In the complaint it is stated that the complainant is a consumer and in the complementary replication he affirms that he is a consumer of the product Ujala. In order to be a consumer according to Sec. 2(1)(d)(i) he must have purchased Ujala for a consideration or he must be the user of such goods other than the person why buys such goods. But throughout the complaint and complementary replication there is not a single statement by the complainant that he had purchased ''Ujala'' once or used Ujala. There is no mention anywhere in the complaint or in the complementary replication as to when and where and from whom he has purchased the product under dispute. So, we conclude that the complainant is not a consumer as defined in Sec. 2(1)(d)(i) of the C.P. Act

SEC. 2(1)(b) of the C.P. Act reads, "Complainant means, (i). a consumer; or (ii). any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), or under any other law for the time being in force; or (iii). the Central Government or any State Government, who or which makes a complaint.

Hence a complaint can be made before this Commission only by the Consumer of goods as defined in Sec. 2(1)(d)(i) or by any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The complainant in this case is not a consumer. He is not a representative of any registered consumer association. So, the complainant in this case is not a complainant as defined in Sec. 2(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act. As far as the consumer grievance is concerned, there is no material produced on behalf of the complainant to show any defect in the product under dispute, or any loss sustained by the complainant because of the defective quality of such products. In the complaint itself and in the complementary replication there is no allegation against the quantity, quality, price, purity, defects etc. of the products. There is no claim to have any defect removed from the goods under dispute or for replacement of defective goods with new goods without defects. There is also no claim to have the price returned to the complainant. But there is a statement in the complementary replication that the complain ant has sustained a loss of not less than one lakh rupees. But this loss is in his business in superwhite and not as a consumer of Ujala. So, here the loss incurred by the complainant is not the result of a consumer grievance, but the result of the trade competition between the complainant, who is the manufacturer of superwhite and the opposite party, who is the manufacturer of Ujala.

IN these circumstances we find that the complainant is not a consumer and is therefore not competent to file the complaint under Sec. 12 read with Sec. 18 of the Consumer Protection Act. This Commission can grant only such reliefs as are enumerated in Sec. 14 of the C.P. Act. Sec. 14 of the C.P. Act reads, "If after the proceedings conducted under Sec. 13, the District Forum is satisfied that the goods complained against suffer from any of the defects specified in the complaint or that any of the allegations contained in the complaint about the services are proved, it shall issue an order to the opposite party directing him to take one or more of the following things namely:- (a) to remove defect pointed out by the appropriate laboratory from the goods in question; (b) to replace the goods with new goods of similar description which shall be free from any defect; (c) to return to the complainant the price, or, as the case may be, the charges paid by the complainant; (d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or, injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party.

THE provisions of Sec. 14 are applicable to the State Commission under the provisions of Sec. 18. But in the nature of the complaint in this case no such relief is prayed for or can be granted.

In these circumstances we hold that the complaint is not maintainable before this commission and hence the complaint is dismissed. There shall be no order of costs. Complaint dismissed. _____________