SUKHDEV RAJ BALDEV RAJ vs DARSHAN SINGH

THE opposite party before the District Forum has filed this appeal against the order dated 8.4.1992 passed by the District Forum, Kapurthala, in Complaint Case No. 17 of 1991, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ''the Act'').

IN view of the point involved in this appeal we shall only notice the facts necessary for deciding it. The complainant-respondent is stated to have supplied wheat for Rs. 3440/- to the opposite party-appellant on 1.6.1989 and that when he asked for receipt from the opposite party, he was given a temporary receipt (Exhibit Al). The complainant''s case is that when he asked for money due to him from the opposite party for the said deal, the latter refused to pay him. Hence the complaint. The opposite party filed its version on 14.5.1991 and denied the allegations of the complainant. An objection was raised that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(l)(d) of the Act. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective stands. The District Forum vide the impugned order held that an amount of Rs. 3440/- is due to the complainant from the opposite party and the latter shall pay the same to him with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of the application till realization. Feeling aggrieved by this decision of the District Forum, the opposite party-appellant has come up before us with this appeal. Although the District Forum in its order has noticed the objection relating to jurisdiction raised by the opposite party, unfortunately, it completely omitted to deal with the said crucial point while deciding the case and proceeded to consider the case on merits.

Despite the service having been effected on the complainant-respondent twice, none has appeared on his behalf. We have heard the learned counsel for the opposite party-appellant and considered the record with requisite care.

IN the appeal filed on behalf of the opposite party, the objection raised before the District Forum has been reiterated before us that the complainant is not a ''consumer'' and the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain, hear and decide the case under Section 12 of the Act. There is substance in this contention. The case of the complainant is that he had supplied wheat worth Rs. 3440/- to the opposite party on 1.6.1989 and the amount due to him was not paid by the opposite party. A person who carries on business of supply of goods on payment does not receive any service from the purchaser for payment. Accordingly, the complainant is not a ''consumer'' as defined in Section 2(l)(d) of the Act. That being the case, the complaint is not maintainable. We are further of the view that the order made by the District Forum on merits of the case also suffers from a serious legal infirmity. Omitting more details, the District Forum while appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties have "...It seems that there was dispute between the parties regarding money to be taken by the respondent firm from the complainant and on account of this, the payment has not been made or withheld by the respondent. But for this, the remedy with the respondent-firm is to recover the money from the complainant through a civil court, if so advised."

AFTER having made the aforesaid observation, even then the District Forum held that an amount of Rs. 3440/- is due to the complainant from the opposite party-firm. AFTER its having made the aforesaid observation, one should have expected that the District Forum would dismiss the complaint as devoid of merits. While appearing as P.W. 2, the complainant has clearly stated before the District Forum that he had been supplying paddy and wheat to the opposite party and the other firms since 1988. The present commercial transaction took place between the parties on 1.6.1989. By now there is a catena of authorities of the National Commission that when a person sells or obtains goods for commercial purpose, such a person does not fall within the ambit of the word ''consumer''. In these circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant is not entertainable under the Act. In the light of what has been stated above, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum and dismiss the complaint (No. 17 of 1991 on the file of the District Forum). The complainant will, however, be at liberty to make a claim in an appropriate Court of law, if so advised. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. _______________