VISHAL ROADWAYS vs ECONOMIC TRADERS (GUJARAT) LTD.

THIS Revision Petition is directed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat dated 21.12.1995 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. The facts given rise to this petition are that M/s. Economic Traders (Gujarat) Ltd., complainant, approached the District Forum, Rajkot, for recovery of Rs. 24,530/- on the allegations: That the complainant was manufacturing oil engines and spare parts and selling the same throughout the country. The opponent was a carrier whose services were hired by the complainant for transportation of goods from Rajkot to different places. The opponent was sending the bills to the complainant and the complainant was making payments on account. From 1.4.1991 to 31.3.1992 the complainant received bills from the opponent for Rs. 5,76,654/- whereas the complainant had paid Rs. 5,97,554/-, i.e. Rs. 20,900/-in excess. Under these premises a claim for refund of Rs. 20,900/- was raised.

THE complaint was contested. No dispute was raised regarding the dealing between the parties. It was alleged that in November, 1991 Government had decided that maximum weight of only 8 metric tonnes was to be loaded in a truck. As such, the opponent had sent the bills as per new rate but the complainant committed the breach of the terms of the agreement and delivered the goods for loading to the other parties. Thus, from 1.6.1991 to 31.12.1991, there was chances of earning good profit, but the complainant did not deliver the goods for transportation to the opposite party. The opposite party suffered a loss of Rs. 51,000/- on account of breach of terms of the agreement by the complainant. It was also pleaded that the dispute between the parties was of a civil nature and the complainant should have filed a civil suit and not a complaint before the District Forum. After holding a due inquiry, the District Forum returned the finding that the complainant had not committed breach of the terms of the agreement and the relations between the complainant and the opponent were of a customer and businessman. In the dealings, the complainant had paid more than the required amount to the opponent and the complainant was entitled to recover if from the opponent. It was not necessary to go to the Civil Court. The District Forum directed the opponent to pay Rs. 20,900/- with 12% interest.

FEELING aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the opposite party approached the State Commission by way of an appeal. The State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal.

BEING dissatisfied with the order of the State Commission the opposite party has approached this Commission by filing this Revision Petition. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the District Forum as well as the State Commission went wrong in holding that the dispute between the parties fell within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The dispute between the parties related to settlement of account and for the balance due on the basis of accounts which did not fall within the ambit of Section 2(l)(c) and (e) Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the dispute. The proper remedy for the complainant was to approach the Civil Court to enforce its right. On the other hand, Counsel for the respondent contended that the findings returned by the District Forum as well as the State Commission were in accordance with law and called for no interference.

WE have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the parties. We find merit in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. The complainant had approached the District Forum with a specific allegation that the opposite party had paid an amount of Rs. 20,900/- in excess of the amount due to the opposite party and the request made was for a direction to the opposite party to refund the amount. The expression ''complaint'' has been defined in Section 2(l)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which reads as under: "(c)" "Complaint" means any allegation in writing made by complainant that � (i) an unfair trade practice or a restrictive trade practice has been adopted by any trader; (ii) the goods bought by him or agreed to be bought by him suffer from one or more defects; (iii) the services hired or availed of or agreed to be hired or availed of by him suffer from deficiency in any respect; (iv) a trader has charged for the goods mentioned in the complaint price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law for the time being in force or displayed on the goods for any package containing such goods; (v) goods which will be hazardous to life and safety when used, are being offered for sale to the public in contravention of the provisions of any law for the time being in force requiring traders to display information in regard to the contents, manner and effect of use of such goods; with a view to obtaining any relief provided by or under this Act".

AS observed by the District Forum, the relation between the complainant and the opponent was of a customer and businessman. In the dealings, the complainant had paid more than the required amount to the opposite party and the complainant was entitled to recover the said amount from them. The allegations made in the complaint did not spell out a case of hiring of service and suffering from deficiency. Rather it disclosed a case relating to settlement of accounts and for the balance due on the basis of accounts. The complainant did not fall within the ambit of Section 2(1)(c) and (e) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Civil suit was the proper remedy to recover the amount paid in excess. The District Forum and the State Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint which was beyond the scope of the Consumer Protection Act. We hold that the order of the District Forum as well as the State Commission suffer from legal infirmity and are unsustainable in law. In the result, the Revision Petition is allowed, the orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum are set aside resulting in dismissal of the complaint. However, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.