S.Lalitha vs FEENA PETRO PRODUCTS LIMITED

THIS action has come up before us today for passing an ex-parte order on merits. We heard the arguments of learned Counsel appearing for the complainant namely, Mr. P. Rajan. We perused the averments made in the complaint and the documents filed alongwith it.

SUCH perusal reveals the following factors : The complainants are : (1) S. Lalitha and her husband, (2) K. Soundarraj. The opposite party is M/s. Feena Petro Productions Limited, Chennai-16. The said opposite party is running gas filling plant at Chennai and supplying gas cylinders in various districts in Tamil Nadu through its agents. The complainants got the agency for the sale of gas cylinders from the opposite party. The complainants would claim that an amount of Rs. 1,26,000/- had been deposited with the opposite party by way of demand drafts taken on different dates for procuring the agency.

For sometime, the complainants received gas cylinders from the opposite party. Such gas cylinders, the complainants would claim, were actually sold to the customers/consumers. The customers/consumers were stated to have given complaints of shortage of weight in gas cylinder. This aspect of the matter was stated to have been reported by the complainants to the opposite party.

SINCE the customers/consumers very often complained shortage of weight in gas cylinder, the complainants wanted to cancel the agency and get back the advance amount of Rs. 1,26,000/- from the opposite party. The complainants requested the opposite party to cancel the agency and make a refund of the deposit amount of Rs. 1,26,000/- made by them.

THE opposite party adopted dilatory tactics in making the refund of the amount of the deposit. The complainants consequently issued a Lawyer''s notice. To the Lawyer''s notice, the opposite party, of course, responded with a reply contending false accusations. Alleging the above factors, the complainants knocked at the doors of this Commission alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and claiming the relief as below to direct the opposite parties : (a) to pay Rs. 1,26,000/- being the deposit amount with interest @ 24% p.a. from 22.4.1998 till date of payment; (b) award a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand only) for mental agony; (c) award a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- for physical strains; and (d) award a sum of Rs. 10,000/- or costs of this petition."

PROCESS issued to the opposite party was served. Despite such service, the opposite party did not choose to enter appearance through a Counsel of his choice and he virtually remained absent. Even today, the opposite party is absent. Therefore, he is set ex-parte.

LEARNED Counsel appearing for the complainant pressed this Commission to pass an ex-parte order on merits in the absence of the opposite party on consideration of the materials placed on record. We are of the view that the factors getting revealed from the averments made in the complaint and the documents filed alongwith it do not at all constitute a consumer dispute and the complainants cannot at all be construed on the facts and in the circumstances of the case consumers within the relevant provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (for short, "the Act"). Admittedly, the complainants took the agency for the resale of the gas cylinders to the customers/consumers. According to Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act, articles or goods even purchased for consideration for resale would be away from the purview of the provision of consumer. A useful reference may be made at this juncture to a decision emerging from the National Commission in K.R. Ramasamy v. O.M. Noorudeen & Anr., and O.M. Noorudeen & Anr., v. M/s. S.G.S. Petro Organic Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., III (1996) CPJ 117 (NC)=National Commission and Supreme Court on Consumer Cases 1986-99 Part III Page 4537. The National Commission in that case held that the complainant who wanted sub-dealership to purchase kerosene and sell it to consumers in the village is excluded from the purview of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, holding that the complainant''s proposed activity is one of resale.

The complaint, as such, deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. Complaint dismissed.