Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi, President;
Smt. A.S. Vijayakar, Member; Dr. A.K. Ghosh, Member;
Mr. Y. Krishan, Member; Dr. Rais Ahmed, Member.
SURAJ STEEL, HAZARIBAGH—Appellant
versus
R.P. SHARMA—Respondent
First Appeal No. 4 of 1988—Decided on 25.7.1989
For the Appellant :Shri Kishore Kumar Patel, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Shri S.K. Sinha & Shri R.S. Singh, Advocates.
Jurisdiction of State Commission under the Consumer Protection Act
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Jurisdiction of State Commission - The court held that the State Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the complaint as the compensation claimed was less than rupees one lakh and the matter was purely in the realm of 'breach of contract' and did not constitute a 'consumer dispute' as envisaged by the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed by M/s Suraj Steels, Hazarabagh, the respondent in a case regarding the alleged failure to carry out obligations under a contract for supply of iron rods.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the State Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and that the matter was purely in the realm of 'breach of contract' and did not constitute a 'consumer dispute' as envisaged by the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.
Issues: Jurisdiction of State Commission, Nature of the dispute
Ratio Decidendi: The compensation claimed being less than rupees one lakh, the State Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the complaint. The matter was purely in the realm of 'breach of contract' and did not constitute a 'consumer dispute' as envisaged by the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the State Commission and directed the case to be dismissed.
V. Balakrishna Eradi, President –– This is an appeal filed by M/s Suraj Steels, Hazarabagh which firm was the respondent in Case No. 21 of 1988 on the file of the State Commission, Bihar at Patna. The complaint in that case was in respect of the alleged failure on the part of the appellant firm to carry out its obligations under a contract for supply of certain quantity of iron rods at a stipulated rate to the complainant in pursuance of an agreement said to have been entered into between the two parties.
2. The compensation claimed in the case was very much below rupees one lakh. The State Commission, however, proceeded to entertain the matter and it has passed orders directing the appellant herein to return to the respondent Rs. 12,500/-, being the advance found to have been paid by the respondent, with 16.5 % interest and also to pay a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the respondent for the alleged “mental, physical and economic torture.”
3. After hearing both sides, we have come to the conclusion that this appeal must succeed on two grounds. Firstly, the compensation claimed being only less than rupees one lakh, the State Commission had no jurisdiction under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act to entertain and adjudicate upon the complaint. The proceedings before the State Commission were, therefore, wholly without jurisdiction. Secondly, the matter was purely in the realm of ‘breach of contract’ and it did not constitute a ‘consumer dispute’ as envisaged by the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant should have been referred by the State Commission to pursue his ordinary remedy by way of instituting a civil suit and no relief should have been granted to him under the Act.
4. On the aforesaid two grounds, we set aside the order of the State Commission and direct the Case No. 21 of 1988 on the file of the State Commission, Bihar shall stand dismissed. In the circumstances, we direct the parties to bear their respective costs.
Appeal allowed.
–
