RAMGARH SUGAR MILLS vs RAM NARESH PRASAD CHAURASIA

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 18.5.1999 passed by District Consumer Forum, Kushinagar in Complaint Case No. 254/1999.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant had transported sugarcane at the place of opposite party/appellant for which a sum of Rs. 2,43,784/- was to be paid, out of which a sum of Rs. 1,62,687/- has been paid. Inspite of repeated reminders the balance amount has not been paid. The opposite party in its written version has alleged that the complainant is a contractor and hence he is not a consumer. The question of jurisdiction has also been raised.

The learned District Forum, after considering the case of the parties, decreed the claim for a sum of Rs. 81,096/- alongwith 14% per annum interest.

AGGRIEVED against the order of the learned District Forum, the opposite party has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the Forum. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the complainant is not a consumer but he is merely a contractor and the amount which he has claimed is only the transportation charges. We are in agreement with this contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant. The complainant cannot by any stretch of definition of consumer can be said to be a consumer in this case. He had contracted to transport sugarcane for certain consideration. Therefore, the complainant who was a contractor is not a consumer.

THE next argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the cause of action arose in the year 1996 and the suit has been filed after a lapse of three years period. It is clear from the records that the transportation was got done in the year 1996. THE complaint has been filed in the year 1999. In the copy of the complaint the date of filing of the same has not been indicated. THE transportation work was done in the year 1996 (in the month of May) and the complaint should have, therefore, been filed within a period of two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. As the complaint has not been filed within a period of two years, therefore, the complaint is barred by limitation. Thus in view of what has been said above, the appeal is liable to be allowed. Order The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the learned District Forum are set aside and the complaint is dismissed. No order as to the costs. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal allowed.