KALURAM And COMPANY vs KISAN SEEDS CORPORATION

THIS appeal is directed against order dated 7th September, 1993 passed by the District Forum, Siwan in Case No. 159 of 1993 in which the appellant here was the complainant and the respondent here was the opposite party before the District Forum. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint of the complainant by the impugned order against which the present appeal has been filed by the complainant.

THE facts of the case for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly noticed. THE complainant had ordered for 180 quintals of seeds of wheat worth Rs. 96,300/- and had paid Rs. 9,300/- through credit memo as advance in respect thereof. THE seed which was supplied by the opposite party was defective and there was only 35% germination as a result of which the complainant asserts that he sustained loss of Rs. 80,000/-. On being noticed the opposite party appeared and controverted the claim of the complainant challenging the maintainability of the case under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the Act) on the grounds that the seed was purchased for re-sale and commercial purpose and therefore the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. The opposite party also challenged the jurisdiction of the District Forum and said that the District Forum, Siwan has no jurisdiction to entertain the case which was over-ruled by the District Forum. But the District Forum has held that the complainant is not a consumer within the Act as he has purchased the wheat for re-sale.

We find nothing wrong with the finding of the District Forum inasmuch as it is evident from the facts of the case that the wheat was purchased by the complainant M/s. Kalu Ram and Company for re-sale. Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act clearly excludes a person who buys any goods for re-sale from the category of a Consumer under the Act. The relevant part of the section reads as follows : "2(1)(d)(i). buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and 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 person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for re-sale or for any commercial purpose; or"

This section clearly lays down that a person who obtains goods for re-sale or for any commercial purpose is not a consumer within the Act. Hence the complainant is not a consumer within the Act and, therefore, the case is not maintainable under the Act.

FOR these reasons the appeal is dismissed. The findings of the District FORum are hereby confirmed. The appellant is directed to pay Rs. 500/- as cost to the respondent-opposite party. Appeal dismissed with costs.