GULAB INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. vs RNG SUITING LIMITED

THE petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency on the part of the petitioner.

BRIEF facts relating to the case are that the complainant had sent a consignment of 1455 Mtrs. of ''Supermatt'' cloth for dyeing and treatment which were received back but with the material not properly processed. In the meantime, another 909 Mtrs. of ''Worsted 555'' was also sent for same purpose. It is the case of the complainant that out of the first consignment, 297.9 Mtrs. of material which was sent for reprocessing was never received back as also the 909 Mtrs. of ''Worsted 555'' was also not received back. There was deficiency in rendering service by the petitioner to the complainant in that the material was not dyed and treated as per the instructions. Thus alleging several deficiencies and requiring several debts a complaint came to be filed before the District Forum who after hearing the parties awarded reliefs in following terms: "This brings us to the relief to be granted to the complainant. The consignments were handed over for treatment by the complainant to the O.P. way back in the year 1997. Almost five years have passed since then and with the passage of time the fabric must have deteriorated in quality to a great extent. Therefore, it would not be proper relief to it to ask the complainant to receive back this weather beaten cloth after five long years. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case the O.P. is directed to pay to the complainant the price of the cloth measuring 909 metres @ Rs. 90/- per metre and the cost of 297.90 metres of cloth @ 78/- per metre, in total Rs. 1,05,046.20. The O.P. is further directed to pay the cost of 1157.10 metres of cloth (which was received back by the complainant from its retailers as defective cloth) amounting to Rs. 90,253.80 which has been calculated @ 78/- per metre. As against this payment the complainant shall return the defective cloth measuring 1157.10 metres to the O.P. In the very peculiar nature and facts and circumstances relating to this consignment of 1157.10 metres the interest is not allowed on the amount of Rs. 90,253.80 because against this payment the O.P. would be receiving weather beaten cloth which would be to his disadvantage and so he must be made to pay interest on this amount. The rates of the cloth at which the above amounts have been calculated have been shown in the documents C-1, C-2 and C-3 as assessable value of the cloth handed over by the complainant to the O.P. On the amount of Rs. 1,05,046.20 the O.P. shall pay interest to the complainant @ 9% per annum from 24.10.1997 till payment. The O.P. is also directed to pay Rs. 1,100/- as costs of litigation to the complainant. This order be complied with by the O.P. within two months from the date of receipt of its certified copy failing which the O.P. shall also pay interest of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 90,253.80 @ 9% per annum from today till payment."

Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the State Commission which was dismissed, hence this revision petition. We heard the parties and perused the material on record.

The only point of law raised before us is that complainant/petitioner is not a consumer as the transaction between the parties was purely commercial as also disputed question of law and facts are involved and the matter should have been relegated to the Civil Court. Several other points were also raised before us which has already been dealt at length by the District Forum and State Commission and we are not looking into it.

BEFORE the amendment to the Consumer Protection Act, rendering of service even for commercial purpose had not been ousted from the jurisdiction of this Commission. It was only in respect of goods that such a bar on jurisdiction existed. In the present case, as per material on record, we find that material was of that of the complainant and what the petitioner was rendering was only a ''service'' in terms of dyeing and treatment of the cloth. Hence it is a clear case of rendering ''service'' and as per definition of consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d)(ii), the respondent is very much a consumer. As far as 2nd Point is concerned, we find that there is no disputed question of point of law and facts for which the matter need to be relegated to the Civil Court. This was a clear case of deficiency in service and both the lower Forums have carefully gone into the mater and have arrived at the right conclusion after going through the evidence and material on record. No other point of law having been shown to us and no other point or jurisdictional error being shown to us we find no ground on calling for our interference in the well reasoned order of the District Forum and as affirmed by the State Commission. This petition is devoid of merit and dismissed with cost of Rs. 2,000/- to be payable to the respondent. Revision Petition dismissed.