PROPRIETOR, SARAVANA INDUSTRIES vs THIRU ANNADURAI

THE 3rd opposite party before the District Forum against whom an award has been passed, is the appellant. THE complainant (1st respondent herein) sought a loan from the opposite parties 1 and 2 for construction of factory for power loom and he was sanctioned a loan of Rs. 4,30,000/-. Out of that he received a sum of Rs. 1,52,657/- and with that amount and spending his own money of Rs. 90,208/- he constructed the factory. THEn he sought for machinery to be delivered by the 3rd opposite party and for that, as margin money the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 54,200/- to the 2nd opposite party which was paid to the 3rd opposite party. THE 3rd opposite party ought to have delivered the machinery on or before 18.7.1993, but the machinery were not supplied not only within 18.7.93 but also after a long time after that. THErefore the 2nd opposite party wrote to the 3rd opposite party that the order for supply of machinery was cancelled and required refund of the margin money. But no margin money was repaid and no machinery was supplied. Aggrieved by the conduct of the three opposite parties the complaint has been filed.

THE three opposite parties contested the matter each of them contending that there was no fault on its side and therefore the complaint was not maintainable. It was further contended that the complaint exceeded pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum and on that ground also the complaint was liable to be dismissed. The District Forum, after considering the evidence, came to the conclusion that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2. But however there was deficiency in service on the part of the 3rd opposite party. On these findings it ordered the 3rd opposite party to refund the margin amount of Rs. 54,200/- to the complainant and also sum of Rs. 50,000/- as damages besides a cost of Rs. 1,000/-.

Aggrieved by this order of the District Forum, the 3rd opposite party has come up with this appeal.

AFTER going through the order of the District Forum and the relevant records, we are of the view that die complaint is not maintainable for more than one reason. In this case, there is no question of any goods purchased being defective or any service hired or availed of for any consideration. The only grievance as against the 3rd opposite party is that having received the margin money of Rs. 54,200/- he failed to deliver the machinery in time and further delayed delivery. Therefore the agreement only relates to supply of machinery. If the machinery has not been delivered as per the agreement then it would amount to breach of contract. No question of supply of defective goods or deficiency in service arises. There is no evidence to show as to whether there was any unfair trade practice also. In these circumstances, there is no cause of action for a complaint to be filed in the Consumer Forum. The proper Forum would be only a Civil Court. Hence on this ground the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Secondly, we find that the contention of the opposite parties that the District Forum does not have pecuniary jurisdiction is also correct. On perusal of the prayer portion in the complaint, we find that the complainant has prayed for Rs. 1,50,000/- for loss suffered by him on account of the conduct of the three opposite parties and another sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- for mental agony. He has also prayed for a direction to the opposite party to deliver the machinery and the cost of the said machinery is not in dispute. Even in the complaint me cost of the machinery is mentioned as Rs. 4.13 lakhs. Clearly these amounts exceed Rs. 5 lakhs. Further the complainant has prayed for interest @ 18% per annum on Rs. 1,70,000/- invested by him for construction of the building. Obviously therefore the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

THUS considering, we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum and dismiss the complaint. However, mere will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.