Mr. Justice B.N. Sinha, President — This appeal is directed against order dated 16th September, 1991 passed by the District Forum, Bhojpur at Arrah in Case No. 37 of 1991 in which the appellant was the opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party) and the respondent was the complainant (hereinafter called the complainant).

2. The complainant is an Association of Fair Price Dealers of Bhojpur who are licensed dealers under relevant orders framed under Section 5 of the Essential Commodities Act. The opposite party’s duty is to ensure distribution of essential commodities to the citizens in the State of Bihar on reasonable rate or rates fixed by the State Government and/or the Central Government from time to time. The essential commodities are invariably distributed by the opposite party through the Fair Price Dealers who procure those articles from the opposite party on payment and sell those articles to the consumers. The complainant filed this case before the District Forum alleging irregularity in supply of articles particularly Palmoline Oil by the opposite party to the Fair Price Dealers, though they have deposited their Bank Drafts for lifting those articles.

2. The opposite party appeared before the District Forum and filed written statement taking preliminary objection to the maintainability of the case before the District Forum. The District Forum on hearing the parties decided the issue against the opposite party and held that “the Fair Price Dealers only get a marginal commission” and hence “it cannot be said that they get the food grains and other articles by the government for resale or for any commercial purposes”.

Against this order the present appeal has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the definition of “Consumer” as given under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the Act) and submitted that the Fair Price Dealers obtain articles from the S.F.C. — the opposite party on payment and they sell those articles to the consumers and they do earn profits in this process and that the Act has specifically excluded a person who obtains goods for resale or for any commercial purpose from the category of “consumer” and therefore the case by an Association of Fair Price Dealers was not maintainable under the Act before the District Forum. We see substance in this submission.

Section 2(1)(d)(i) reads as follows :-

“Consumer” means any person who—

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose;

4. The section specifically mentions that ‘consumer’ does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or any commercial purpose. Admittedly the Fair Price Shop Dealers obtain articles from the S.F.C., — the opposite party to sell them to the consumers. Hence it is for the purpose of resale that articles are obtained by the Fair Price Dealers from S.F.C. — the opposite party. Hence they are not consumers under the Act and they cannot file complaint under the Act for any grievance they may have against the S.F.C. — the opposite party.

5. We accordingly find and hold that the impugned order passed by the District Forum cannot be sustained.

6. In the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the District Forum, Bhojpur at Arrah.

7. The complainant is directed to pay a cost of Rs. 150/- (Rupees one hundred and fifty) only to the opposite party.

Appeal allowed with costs.