MARKET COMMITTEE, PATIALA vs NIKHIL ENTERPRISES

M/s. Nikhil Enterprises, Chandigarh, had instituted a complaint against Punjab State Co-operative Bank, Chandigarh, Kapurthala Central Co-operative Bank, Phagwara, Patiala Central Co-operative Bank, Patiala and Mansa Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Bareta, under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging that they had printed calendars according to the orders of the Punjab Mandi Board and three Bank drafts, dated 19.1.95 for Rs. 42,000/-, Rs. 63,000/- and dated 2.2.95 for Rs. 42,000/- were drawn but the respondent Banks declined to make the payment.

A plea was taken before the Consumer Disputes Redressl Commission, UT, Chandigarh, that M/s. Nikhil Enterprises, the complainant has already instituted a civil suit for recovery of Rs. 3,97,000/- against the Punjab Mandi Board, General Manager, Punjab Mandi Board and the Chairman, Punjab Mandi Board regarding the alleged price of the disputed printed calendars and once they have approached the Civil Court they should not have instituted this complaint against the Bankers. This preliminary objection was rejected by the District Forum, Chandigarh and aggrieved against the impugned order dated 6.12.95, the Market Committee, Bareta with Appeal Case No. 14 and Market Committee, Budhlada with Appeal Case No. 15 of 1996 have come forward here. Since there is common question of maintainability, the three appeals have been taken up together as proposed by the learned Counsel for the parties. The important plea raised on behalf of the respondent is that M/s. Nikhil Enterprises, Chandigarh the complainants are the sellers and supplier of goods i.e. printed calendars. In the case in hand the appellants are the consumers under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 who placed order for the printing of calendars for the year 1996.

The important plea raised on behalf of the appellant is that M/s. Nikhil Enterprises were the ''sellers'' and not consumers in respect of the calendars etc. and they could not come to the Consumer Forum. In this regard the learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on S.K. Kaushal of Ambala Cantt v. M/s Saini Law Agency and Others, I (1992) CPJ 384, wherein it was held that the seller of goods could not possibly raise consumer dispute pertaining to the mere recovery of the price thereof before the Redressal Agencies under the Act. In M/s. Special Machines, Karnal v. Punjab National Bank & Others, I (1991) CPJ 78 (NC), it was observed that if a matter is subjudice before ordinary Civil Court it shall not be proper to enter upon and adjudicate the dispute through the Forum. In the case now in hand it has been brought to our notice that M/s. Nikhil Enterprises instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,97,000/- alongwith Rs. 40,000/- as damages and besides this interest has also been claimed against the respective Market Committee for the price of the calendars printed by them, notwithstanding, the fact that the Bank in question has been impleaded as a party in the Civil Suit referred to above. It is never expected that M/s. Nikhil Enterprises shall on one hand claim the price of the calendars from the respective Mandi Board which allegedly placed the order and also from the Bank who presumably declined to make the payments of the Bank drafts/cheques under instructions from the Mandi Board concerned. The issues involved contain several questions of fact and law which shall require elaborate inquiry. In support of this contention the learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Citi Bank N.A. v. Universal Trading Corporation, II (1995) CPJ 198 (NC). Any authority to the contrary has not been brought to our notice here.

THE Bank in question was only a kind of agent of the corresponding Market Committee. It simply acted according to the direction of its depositor. As seen above M/s. Nikhil Enterprises were the vendors of articles of stationery and that too qua the consumers who had placed the orders for the goods. It is not a case that complainant was a consumer even qua the Bank and thus in view of the reasons given above the appeal succeeds and is accepted and impugned order is set aside and the complainant stands dismissed. This also disposes of Appeals No. 14 & 15 of 1996 which are hereby accepted and as a consequence thereof the two complaints also stand dismissed.

ANNOUNCED. The order be communicated to the parties free of charges. Appeal allowed. _______________