Sanjay Nag vs Hari Om Masala Industries

THE present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 22.10.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, ''State Commission'') in First Appeal No. 879 of 2010, allowing the Appeal and setting aside the order dated 21.04.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short, ''District Forum'') in Complaint No. 342 of 2008.

FACTS in brief: The Petitioner/Complainant Mr. Sanjay Nag, an unemployed youth, deposited Rs. 5,00,000/- with Hari Om Masala Industries, the OP, for the purpose of being a stockiest of spices products. Due to substandard quality of products, the OP factory could not be run. Therefore, Complainant made several requests to OP and sought return of Rs.43,226/- the advance balance and security amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- deposited with the OP, but no avail. Hence, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay back the security amount of Rs. 5 lacs to the complainant along with interest thereon @ 9% p.a. within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order and allowed Rs. 2,000/- on account of cost of litigation.

AGGRIEVED by the order of District Forum, the OP filed a first appeal before the State Commission

THE State Commission allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint. Against the impugned order of State Commission, the complainant filed this revision petition.

WE have heard the counsel for the parties. The counsel for the OP argued that the Complainant is already the proprietor of ''''Nag electrical & Electronics '''' which is still running, therefore he is not unemployed. The complainant started the work of a stockiest of the OP products under stockiest agreement; it ''s a commercial purpose to earn profit and not for earning his livelihood. Hence, the complainant is not consumer of the OP. The said matter is for a recovery of amount; hence Civil Court has the jurisdiction. Also, a case, Crime No. 182/08, pertaining to this very matter is pending before Chief Metropolitan Magistrate ''s court, Kanpur Nagar. The complainant himself is a service provider and the transaction of goods done by him was for commercial purpose. The security amount deposited by the complainant was deposited under stockiest agreement. The work of a stockiest and a dealer is a commercial activity and the complainant is not consumer of the OP.

WE have perused the evidence on record, and place reliance upon the following case laws to conclude this revision petition which are fully applicable to the instant matter - a. Monto Motors Ltd. Vs. Sri Sai Motors and Anr. IV (2013) CPJ 372 (NC).

b. Prashant Nag Vs. Oriental Siramax and Industries Ltd. IV(2011) CPJ (NC).

c. Diamond Cement Jhansi Vs. Manoj Kumar and Ors.III (2002) CPJ 319 has been filed.

On the entirety of the forgoing discussion, it is clear that Complainant has not approached the forum with clean hands and the issue is of commercial purpose, hence not maintainable, under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. We do not find any infirmity in the order of State Commission. Hence, this revision petition is lame of strength, and, accordingly, it is dismissed. The Petitioner is allowed to approach the Civil Court, as per law. The Petitioner can also seek help from the Hon ''ble Supreme Court ''s Authority in Laxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583, on the point of limitation. No order as to costs.