ZILA BASIC SHIKSHA ADHIKARI vs AMBIKA TRADING CORPORATION

THIS is a revision against the judgment and order dated 29.3.1997 passed by District Consumer Forum, Deoria in Complaint Case No. 213/1993. As the case has been decided on merit, the revision has been filed wrongly but it should have been filed as an appeal.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant supplied to opposite party No. 2, Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Deoria, black boards worth Rs. 39,555/-. On the orders of opposite party No. 2, black boards, tables, chairs and drum ("dholak") etc. were supplied, out of which payment of 256 black boards has not been made. 25 black boards which were defective were repaired. Opposite party No. 2 says that the bill of Rs. 39,555/- was given but the same has not been paid to the complainant. A legal notice was also served but with no effect. Hence the present complaint has been filed for recovery of that amount alongwith 24% per annum interest. The opposite parties have alleged that 255 black boards were supplied out of which 25 were defective. They were repaired as alleged by opposite party No. 3. It is mentioned that they do not know whether the payment has been made or not.

The learned District Forum, after considering the case of the parties, directed opposite party No. 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 39,555/- alongwith 12% per annum interest. It also awarded Rs. 200/- as Advocate''s fee and Rs. 200/- as cost of the litigation. It also directed that if the payment is not made within one month, then the interest payable shall be 24% per annum.

AGGRIEVED against the order of the learned District Forum, the opposite party has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the District Forum. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for revisionist has argued that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide this matter. According to learned Counsel it was a case of outright sale of the items to opposite party No. 2. The sale transactions are not covered under the Consumer Protection Act. This contention of the learned Counsel is perfectly right. A perusal of the facts goes to show that the black boards etc. were sold to opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 and for payment of which the present complaint has been filed. It is a suit for recovery of money which is not cognizable under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, as the complainant is not a consumer of opposite party No. 2. He has not hired any service of opposite parties on any way of consideration. Therefore, it is held that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to try this complaint. The revision is, therefore, liable to be allowed. Order The revision is allowed. The judgment and order of the learned District Forum are set aside and the complaint is dismissed. No order as to the costs. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Revision allowed.