R.Mohan vs BRANCH MANAGER, ACT INDIA LTD

THE complainant appeals.

THE case of the complainant is that he ordered spare parts viz., the body of an ambassador car for being used in his taxi which suffered an accident. For that purpose an order was placed on 9.8.1996 on which date he paid Rs. 20,000/-. It is stated by the complainant that the opposite party orally represented that the delivery will be made within two days. But the delivery was made only on 20.9.1996. Furthermore at the time of booking the article the price was quoted at Rs. 56,000/- whereas the complainant had to pay Rs. 67,745/- while taking delivery of the article on account of rise in the price. Aggrieved by those facts the complainant approached the District Forum praying for the following reliefs - (1) directing the opposite parties to remit the excess amount with interest; (2) directing the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for pecuniary loss and mental agony; (3) directing the opposite parties to pay the cost of this complaint.

The opposite parties stated that the District Forum had no jurisdiction since the article was purchased for commercial purpose and further added that it was made clear in the quotation itself that the price quoted would be valid only for a period of 15 days and that no undertaking has been made as regard the date of delivery.

The District Forum after hearing the parties found that it had no jurisdiction. Nevertheless it went into the merits of the case and found that there was no time-limit agreed upon for the delivery of the article and also that the price was not finally fixed at the time of quotation. It therefore found that the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice alleged by the complainant were not established and accordingly the claim was dismissed by order dated 18.6.1997.

WE have to first examine whether the District Forum has got jurisdiction in respect of the mater. The complainant has wrongly used the term "deficiency in service". There is no service agreement between the complainant and the opposite parties. The dispute arose only in respect of a sale of goods. The complainant has also been using wrongly the word "unfair trade practice". The facts alleged may in usual parlance constitute an unfair trade practice, but since the word unfair trade practice has been defined under the Act and given a specific meaning and since there is specific relief for such practice it is not proper in a proceeding in which the defect of an object is alone in question to refer to the term "unfair trade practice". That is likely to prevent the parties and the Court to focus attention on the real issue.

WE have said the dispute arises out of purchase of goods. The term goods have been defined under Section 2(1)(i) of the Act and the term "consumer" has been defined under Section 2(1)(d). The article purchased by the complainant comes within the definition of goods. But it is dear that in this case the purchase was for commercial purpose. The complainant has clearly indicated in his complaint itself that the article purchased was "a body for his taxi". His has not also come forward to state that the taxi was used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the District Forum stands excluded by the exclusive clause contained under Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act. Since the jurisdiction is clearly excluded there is no need to go into the merits of the case. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs. 500/-. Appeal dismissed with costs.