CHIEF OFFICER, UCO BANK vs RABI CHAKRABORTY

THE appellant, is the Chief Officer, U.Co. Bank, Printing & Stationery Dept. has come before this Commission in appeal against the order dated 25th September, 1992 of the Calcutta District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, vide Case No. CDF : 81 of 1992, where direction has given to the U.Co. Bank, 10, Brabourne Road, Calcutta - 700 001 to pay to the complainant/Respondent a sum of Rs. 12,696/- (Rupees twelve thousand six hundred ninety-six only) being the value of the goods supplied on 7.3.89 under challan No. 496 and bill No. 1579 along with 18% interest accrued thereon within 15 days from the receipt of the order.

BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that the Respondent/Complainant is a manufacturer, trader and also a regular supplier of stationery goods/materials having its Registered Office at 87, Ballygunge Place, Calcutta - 700 019. He filed a petition before the Calcutta District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and prayed for- (a) direction upon the opposite party/Appellant to show cause as to why he neglected and failed to make necessary payment against Bill No. 1579 and Challan No. 496 amounting Rs. 12,696/-. The aforesaid supply was made against opposite party/ Appellant''s order No. 31511 dated 31.12.88, and (b) the direction to pay interest on the said amount. The Calcutta District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum directed the U.Co. Bank authority/ Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs. 12,696/- (Rupees Twelve thousand six hundred ninety-six only) along with 18% interest on the said amount within 15 days from 28.9.92. The opposite party come up in appeal to this Commission.

The learned Counsel for the appellant argued on the maintainability ground that the Respondent can not be described as a Consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He stated inter-alia as follows that the word ''Consumer'' is defined in the C.P. Act, 1986 in Clause 2(1)(d) to mean a person who buys any goods for a consideration or who hires any service for a consideration subject to the other conditions as contained therein being satisfied. The Respondent cannot be said to be either a buyer of goods from the U.Co. Bank authority/Appellant or hirer of any services provided by the Bank authority. In this particular case the U.Co. Bank authority is a ''Consumer'' as they are the buyer of stationery goods/materials from the Respondent. Thus the respondent cannot be said to be ''Consumer'' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act.

HE also highlighted the definition of ''Complainant'' under Section 2(1)(b) of C.P. Act where it has been clearly stated the right to make a complaint and manner in which complaint shall be made. Only a Consumer, any voluntary Consumer association registered under Companies Act of 1956 and the Central/ State Govt, can make a complaint. HEre the Respondent does not and/or cannot come under any of the categories as provided in the said Clause (b) of Section 2(1) of the C.P. Act. As such the respondent cannot be a ''complainant'' within the meaning of the said Act, and therefore had no right and locus standi to file the said purported complaint. The learned Counsel for the Appellant also argued that the power of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum or Commission to pass an order is circumscribed by the provisions of Section 14 of the C.P. Act. The said Section 14 does not and cannot authorize the Calcutta District Forum to pass any order as has been passed in the instant case i.e. the order dated 25.9.92 against a Consumer. The said purported order is thus ultra vires the provisions of the said Act, in violations thereof and is without or in excess of jurisdictions.

IT has also been clearly indicated in the Judgment given by the Calcutta District Forum and the submission of the learned Counsel of the Respondent that the Respondent is a manufacturer, regular supplier as well as Trader of Stationery goods/materials. And in the decision of Calcutta District Forum it is indicated that the respondent supplies goods to O.P. the Bank authority/appellant under contract and the status of the complainant is not that of an ordinary trader. The points for consideration in this appeal would be : (a) Whether the complainant/Respondent is a Consumer ? (b) Whether the complainant/Respondent can get relief from this Forum/Commission under C.P. Act, 1986 ? The Hon''ble Commission held as follows : " In the Judgment dated April 8, 1990 in Synco Textiles Pvt. Ltd. v. Greaves Cotton & Company Ltd. (F.A. No. 22 of 1989) I (1991) CPJ 499 (NC), the National Commission has considered in detail the scope of the exclusion clause contained in Section 5(1) of the C.P. Act which defines the expression ''Consumer'' and it was observed as follow : " It is clearly seen that in relation to transactions of purchase of goods, parliament has excluded from the scope of the definition any person who obtain goods for resale or for any commercial purpose."

And also in the judgment dated January 1, 1992 in General Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. v. J.K Cement Works & Others (F.A. No. 98 of 1991)-I (1991) CPJ 550=(1) CPR 359, the National Commission has given an important observation regarding a contractual relation as follows : "Complaint regarding a pure and simple contract for supply of a specific quantity of goods for a settled price between the parties is not maintain- able under the Consumer Protection Act." So, in this case it is clearly established by the arguments and cited judgment of the National Commission that the Respondent cannot be said to be a ''Consumer'' with the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Petition which has been submitted before the Calcutta District Forum cannot be said to be a ''complaint'' within the meaning of the said Act, so the Calcutta District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum can have no right, authority or jurisdiction to entertain the said purported application filed by Respondent. The Jurisdiction of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum or Commission to entertain an original complaint is circumscribed by the provisions of Sections 11 and 17, respectively, so the purported proceedings initiated on the basis of the said purported petition made by the Complainant/Respondent before the Calcutta District Forum are ultra vires the provisions of Section 11 of the said Act, without or in excess of jurisdiction.

THE impugned orders are vitiated by an errors of law going to the root of the jurisdiction of the Forums to entertain and adjudicate upon the complaint. We accordingly allow this appeal petition and set aside the orders passed by the Calcutta District Forum. We, however, make it clear that this order shall not operate to the prejudice of the respondent in the matter of his pursuing any remedy that he may have, under Law, before the ordinary Civil Courts. THEre will be no order as to cost. Appeal allowed.