TATA TIMKEN LTD. vs V.JAYALAKSHMI

THIS Revision Petition has been filed by M/s. Tata Timken Ltd. challenging the legality of the orders passed by the State Commission, Madras and the District Forum, Madras directing the Revision Petitioner Company to allot a specified number of partly convertible debentures to the complainant in the case (the respondent herein).

THE facts in brief are that the complainant had applied for allotment of 100 shares and 20 partly convertible debentures in the Revision Petitioner Company (hereinafter called ''Company'') in response to an advertisement issued by the Company and remitted an amount of Rs. 1000/-. The Company sent a communication dated 12.11.1991 to the Complainant that they were alloting 20 partly convertible debentures and turning down her request for allotment of 100 shares. The complaint was filed alleging that despite the aforesaid communication stating that 20 partly convertible debentures were being allotted to the complainant, the Company had failed to make such allotment and hence they should be directed to allot the debentures in question to the complainant and also pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/-by way of compensation. The Company failed to appear before the District Forum on the date on which the case was taken up for consideration and hence the District Forum passed an ex-parte order directing the Company to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/-by way of compensation to the complainant together with an amount of Rs. 300/- by way of cost. It did not direct the Revision Petitioner Company to allot 20 partly convertible debentures to the Complainant. The Complainant preferred an appeal before the State Commission, Madras contending that in addition to the aforesaid reliefs, she should also be granted the relief of a direction against the Company to allot to her 20 partly convertible debentures. This prayer made by the Appellant was accepted by the State Commission and the order of the District Forum was modified by granting to the complainant the further relief of directing the Revision Petitioner Company to allot 20 partly convertible debentures to her.

THE Company has come up in Revision before this Commission challenging the orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission, Madras. The main contention urged of the Revision Petitioner is that the complainant is not a consumer at all and the order passed by the District Forum, Madras as well as the order passed by the State Commission in granting reliefs to her be set aside and the complaint before the District Forum, Madras be dismissed.

IN the light of the order passed by us today in Tata Timken Ltd. v. Consumer Protection Council &Ors. in Revision Petition No. 236 of i994 wherein the identical question has been discussed by us in detail, the objections raised by the Revision Petitioner against the maintainability of the complaint filed by the Respondent before the District Forum have to be upheld, following the dictum laid down in the said order. The orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission are set aside on the ground that since the Complainant cannot be regarded as a Consumer, the orders passed in her favour in purported exercise of the powers conferred under the Consumer Protection Act are illegal and without jurisdiction. This Revision Petition is accordingly allowed and in supercession of the orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission, the complaint filed before the District Forum by the complainant is hereby dismissed. A copy of the order passed by us in Revision Petition No. 236 of 1994 will be appended to this order and will form part of this order.