MYSORE SALES INTERNATIONAL LTD. vs M.N.MISRA

THIS revision petition has arisen out of the order dated 25.7.95 of the West Bengal State Commission at Calcutta affirming the order dated 3.6.94 passed by the District Forum, Calcutta and directing the payment of interest on the amount of Rs. 11 lakhs for the period 5.1.93 to 31.3.93.

THE case of the complainant in the nutshell is that the petitioner herein acted dishonestly and in a manner which is against all business norms and ethics in inducing the complainant to deposit an amount of Rs. 11.00 lakh on the pretext of granting him dealership of the oil manufactured by the petitioner herein and then refunding the amount after 83 days without interest upon deciding not to appoint the complainant a dealer. On a complaint, the District Forum, Calcutta by its order dated 3.6.93: directed the petitioner herein to pay interest @ 18% per annum for the period of 83 days and Rs. 5,000/- as costs. It appears that the petitioners herein after entering appearance before the District Forum did not file their version and absented on the subsequent hearings. Before the State Commission in appeal, the stand of the petitioners was that the deposit of Rs. 11.00 lakhs had been made as an advance against the supplies of oil to be made by the petitioners herein. The State Commission in the impugned order came to a finding that the deposit of Rs. 11.00 lakhs is not for purchase of gods but kept as security, obviously the refund of security deposit by the Petitioners herein without appointing the complainant as a selling agent is definitely deficiency in service and the refund of the security must accompany with interest in absence of any contract to the contrary. The appeal of the petitioners herein was dismissed and the order dated 3.6.94 passed by the District Forum, Calcutta was affirmed. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records. In our view, the complainant is not a consumer within the ambit and scope of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The case of the complainant as set out in the complaint and as found by the District Forum as well as by the State Commission is that the amount of Rs. 11.00 lakhs was deposited as security by the complainant for appointing him as a selling agent of the oil manufactured by the petitioners herein. On this finding of fact, the inference is that it is a contractual obligation. There is no hiring of the service of the petitioners herein by the complainant for consideration. Failure to appoint the complainant as a selling agent is a breach of contract for which remedy lies in Civil Court and not before the Consumer Forum. The amount was deposited as a security for appointment as a selling agent and it was not a deposit like with Bank or financier. Even if it was a transaction, as is the case of the petitioner herein, of the sale of oil, it will be hit by the fact that it was a commercial contract and case relating to non-supply of the oil. The complainant will not be a consumer being purchase of goods in which no defect is alleged. The orders of the State Commission as well as District Forum suffer from serious irregularities in the exercise of jurisdiction and are hereby set aside. The complaint is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.