MOCHERLA SUBBA RAO vs SEEMA TRADING CORPORATION

IN this O.P. the complainant complained that the opposite parties took him for a ride and left him in the lurch which resulted in his incurring loss and seeks directions to the opposite parties to make good the loss suffered by him and also refund the deposit said to have been made by him to the opposite party No. 1 through opposite party No. 4. The crucial question that arises in this O.P. is whether the complainant could fit himself into the definition of ''Consumer'' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We find that on the facts of the case the complainant does not fall within the definition of ''Consumer''.

THE facts in brief as narrated by the complainant in his complaint are that he approached the 4th opposite party enticed by an advertisement in the newspapers got issued by the 1st opposite party for applications for appointment as distributing agents for Seema Cooking Gas and the pamphlets distributed by the 3rd opposite party, of which the 4th opposite party was the proprietor, stating that he was the sole distributor of the Seema Gas for Ongole District and that interested candidates should apply to him for gas dealership. THE 4th opposite party assured him that there would be regular supply of gas by the 1st opposite party and that there would be good margin both in the supply of gas cylinders and gas connections. Emboldened by the assurance given by the 4th opposite party, the complainant agreed to be the Zonal Dealer for Inkollu Zone. He states that the 4th opposite party collected from him Rs. 85,000/- and gave him letter dated 25.1.1993 which reads as follows : "We are pleased to appoint you as our zonal dealer for Inkollu zone with effect from January 25th, 1993. As such that you are hereby authorised to deal our Company products (Seema). You are hereby authorised to maintain all such records required and submit the same on demand by Government Authorities. THE Terms and Conditions are as per our agreement which shall be executed on completion of the necessary formalities like security deposit. We wish all success in your new venture."

THE complainant states that he considered himself appointed as dealer on the basis of that letter and spent considerable sums in opening show room and in purchasing gas cylinders etc. for the business of gas distribution. Before long he discovered the fraud played on him because there was no Seema Gas coming his way and he was left high and dry. After addressing letters in vain to the opposite parties complaining about the treatment meted to him, he approached this Commission for redress by the present complaint on 10.6.1994. The opposite parties were served. Mr. P. Ramesh filed his appearance for opposite parties 1 and 2 and Mr. T. Rayalu filed his appearance for the 5th opposite party; opposite parties 1, 2 and 5 filed their versions/counters. Opposite parties .3 and 4 did not appear and did not file versions/ counters. On behalf of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties, it was contended that the complainant was not a ''Consumer'', and that even assuming that he was a ''Consumer'' there was no contractual, or other relationship between the complainant and them, and that there was no dealership or other agreement whatsoever between the complainant on the one hand, and them on the other. They denied any liability to the complainant. The 5th opposite party was appointed as dealer by the 1st opposite party. It also denied that the complainant was a ''Consumer'' and also that no contract or agreement whatsoever was there between it and the complainant appointing him as dealer. In its counter it also stated as follows : "It is further submitted that as per the contentions of the complainant the opposite party No. 4 is the sole distributor for Prakasam District (previously) and that the said opposite party appointed the complainant for Inkollu region. Therefore, this opposite party is having no contractual liability with the complainant as he neither appointed the complainant nor any consideration passed between them. The complainant has taken all coersive steps as far as possible, but he is not successful in his efforts.... There is no civil liability nor consumer liability between the complainant and this opposite party."

It is obvious that the complainant is unable to establish even on the pleas taken by him that there was any privity of contract between and the 1st and 2nd opposite parties; so also in the case of the 5th opposite party. The letter dated 25.1.1993 establishes that, if at all, the 3rd opposite party i.e., the Proprietor of the 3rd opposite party, was "pleased to appoint" the complainant as his zonal dealer for Inkollu Zone with effect from 25.1.1993 and authorised him to deal with his products. It was also stated therein that the agreement was yet to be executed and that the complainant would be governed by the terms and conditions of that agreement to be entered into "on completion of the necessary formalities like security deposit". The complainant has no receipts to evidence payments to the 4th opposite party. The facts, even as alleged by the complainant, do not establish that there was any hiring of services of the 3rd opposite party by the complainant for consideration nor is there any purchase or agreement to purchase goods by the complainant as "Consumer'' and not as dealer in goods. On these facts, while we sympathise with the complainant, we are unable to entertain this complaint and help him because he is not a ''Consumer''. The complaint is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. Complaint dismissed.