AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 294 wordsTHIS is a complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act and is posted for hearing on the question of the maintainability.
THE case of the complainant is that he is a broker for the opposite party to canvass business for the sale of yarn manufactured by the opposite party. It is the allegation of the complainant that the opposite party refused to supply the goods to the customer from whom the complainant received order. It is also alleged that the yarn supplied was of defective quality. THE opposite party arbitrarily cancelled the brokership of the complainant. It is mainly on this ground of arbitrary cancellation of the brokership the complainant claims to have lost reputation, income, suffered mental agony and shock for which he claims compensation in the sum of Rs. 20,00,000/-. The complainant is the broker and his service as broker has been hired or availed of by the opposite party. The complainant is not therefore a consumer. It is the opposite party which is a consumer as it has availed of the services of the complainant as broker. The complainant cannot, therefore seek remedy under the provisions of the Consumer Protections Act. His remedy, if any, is before the competent court of civil jurisdiction.
One other allegation is made that the goods supplied by the opposite party were of inferior quality. Evidently the complainant purchased these goods for resale or for brokerage to others. He is not consuming the goods. Infact the claim is not based upon this. But only on the ground that there had been arbitrary cancellation of the broker ship. The complaint is misconceived and must fail.
IN the result, the complaint fails and is dismissed. No costs. Complaint dismissed.