Sahul Hameed vs G.S.SALES CORPORATION

THE complainant is the Proprietor of M/s. Muthu Feeds. He required 125 KW generating set fixed with Ashok Leyland Engine and Kirloskar Alternator Complete Assembly for the purpose of generating electricity in view of the power failure at internals. He approached the opposite parties to give quotation for the same. THE 1st opposite party gave a quotation on 30.11.1994 signed by the 2nd opposite party fixing the price at Rs. 4,25,000/- and it was agreed that the complainant had to pay for the Sales Tax, Excise Duty, Packaging, Forwarding, Freight charges and other expenses as applicable at the time of delivery at the complainant''s place within 30 days. As per the terms and condition of sale, the complainant had to pay 25% of the total cost as advance amount. THE complainant paid a sum of Rs. 3,69,750/- to the 1st opposite party through M/s. Haritha Finance Ltd. THE opposite party had to send the generator set within 30 days from the receipt of the said money. But the opposite parties did not do so. In spite of explanation by the complainant to the opposite parties about the immediate urgency and importance of the generator set the opposite parties did not care for it. THE complainant issued notice to the opposite parties on 6.10.1995 and to that the opposite parties sent a reply raising false allegations. THE failure of the opposite parties to supply the generator set amounts to deficiency in service. On account of that the complainant suffered heavy loss and damage since there was frequent power failures. On these allegations the complaint has been filed claiming compensation under different heads all totalling to Rs. 10,34,675/-.

THE opposite parties have chosen to remain ex parte and, therefore, no written version has been filed. The point that arises for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and if so what relief can be granted to the complainant.

Point : The simple case of the complainant is that the opposite parties agreed to supply generator set for a price of Rs. 4,25,000/-. Even though the complainant had to pay an advance of 25% of the total cost only, in fact he paid a sum of Rs. 3,69,750/- and the agreement was that the opposite party had to supply the generator set within 30 days from the date of receipt of the amount but they have not done so in spite of several demands. From these allegations, it would appear that the transaction is purely a sale transaction and no question of hiring or availing of any services of the opposite party arises. Therefore, if the allegations of the complainant are true, it would amount to only breach of contract and not any deficiency in service. The complainant cannot claim to be a consumer within the meaning given under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. This being the case the complaint cannot be maintained in a Consumer Forum. The proper remedy for the complainant is to file a civil suit in a Civil Court. Viewing thus we hold that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

ACCORDINGLY we order. There will be no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.