K.NAGAIAH vs Ch.Prabhakar

THIS revision petition is filed by fourteen petitioners/complainants against Ch. Prabhakar, Proprietor of M/s. Bharat Electrical and Engineering Shop, Kesamudram aggrieved by the order of the State Commission dated 27.3.1997 in First Appeal No. 243 of 1996 by which the State Commission dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the District Forum, Warrangal dated 10.10.1995 in Complaint No. 492 of 1994. Brief facts are :

THE 14 petitioners are small farmers belonging to SC, ST and BC Communities and residents of Chetala Mupparam village. THEir applications were recommended by the District Rural Development Agency, Warrangal (DRDA) for granting subsidy for digging wells and installation of oil engines under Special B.C. Corporation, Warangal also sanctioned a marginal money and Andhra Bank accordingly advanced Rs. 10,000/- to each of the complainants for digging wells and paid Rs. 13,000/- for each of the petitioners to the respondent Ch. Prabhakar, proprietor, Ms. Bharat Electrical and Engineering Shop, Kesamurdam for supply of oil engines to the petitioners. THE petitioners themselves did not pay any consideration amount to the Bank and the Bank honoured the Government scheme to benefit them. It is the case of the complainant that the respondent received Rs. 13,000/- for each of the petitioners from Andhra Bank but did not supply the oil engines to them. They filed the original complaint claiming compensation Rs. 20,000/- each, for damages caused to the standing crops and also the brief settlement Rs. 13,000/- each paid by the Andhra Bank to them. The District Forum dismissed the complaint and held that there was no privity of contract between the petitioners and the respondents, and the petitioners were not consumers. The District Forum further held that the Andhra Bank filed a suit against the respondents and as the suit was pending, no relief could be granted to the petitioners.

In the appeal before the State Commission, it was again dismissed on the limited point that since the suit was pending before the Civil Court the question of refund cannot be agitated under the Consumer Protection Act. But, the State Commission held that the petitioners were the beneficiaries of the scheme since Andhra Bank paid Rs. 13,000/- to the respondents for the benefit of the petitioners, they as beneficiaries were entitled to maintain the complaint.

IN the present petition, the petitioners argued that the Bank was acting for and on behalf of the petitioners who are the beneficiaries under the DRDA Scheme wherein the Bank is an agent for the petitioners and any action by the agent cannot take away the right of the principal. They further contended that the respondent is in collusion with the Bank, defrauded the petitioners and that the petitioners suffered losses due to the wrongful actions of the respondents. It is also pleaded that Bank filed the suit subsequent to the filing of the complaint by the petitioners in the District Forum and that they cannot take away the right of the petitioners to maintain the complaint for damages against the respondent. It is their claim that the respondent is liable to pay each of them Rs. 13,000/- which was paid on their behalf by Andhra Bank and damages of Rs. 20,000/- due to losses fuffered totalling to Rs. 33,000/- each for the 14 petitioners which will amount to Rs. 4,62,000/-. It is prayed that the case be remanded back to the District Forum and be decided on merits considering the deficiency of service. We have perused the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission. This was not a case of supply of defective goods and there was no hiring of services in the present case between the petitioners and the respondent and hence the question of deficiency of service under Consumer Protection Act does not arise. The transaction was one of sale and purchase simplicitor namely, the sale and purchase of oil engines. Besides Andhra Bank who actually paid the amount to the respondent is a non-joinder in the complaint. In a similar case, Dr. G.S. Anandan v. E.N. Dileep in I (1997) CPJ 59 (NC), the National Commission has taken a similar view on which we rely in the present case. In the cited case above, due to short supply of rare herbs, the manufacturer could not deliver the hair tonic ordered where the price was paid, the manufacturer offered the refund of the amount or asked the purchaser to wait and for that the purchaser did not respond. When the hair tonic was delivered an year later, the purchaser refused to accept it and filed a complaint. National Commission returned the finding "In this case, there was no arrangement of hiring of service at all between the parties. The transaction was one of sale and purchase simplicitor, namely the sale and purchase of hair tonic. As there was no hiring of service, the question of deficiency in service did not arise". In the present case also the petitioners did not hire services of the respondent and there is no question of defective product or deficiency in service when he is not a consumer. Even otherwise, the Bank has filed a civil suit for recovery of the amount against the respondent which is pending. We see no merit in the revision petition and it is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.