Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
M/s Rohit Chemical & Allied Industries Pvt. Ltd. —Complainant
versus
National Research Development
Corporation —Opp. Party
Original Petition No. 34 of 1994
Decided on 4.9.2013
For the Complainant :Mr. R. K. Dhawan & Ms. Richa Dhawan, Advocates.
For the Opp. Party :Mr. Joydeep Sharma, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
National Commission cannot arrogate to itself those powers which are not vested with it.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 2(1)(d) and 21—Complaint—Maintanability— National Commission cannot arrogate to itself those powers which are not vested with it—No admission/concession made by parties can govern law—No amount of rhetoric can change position of law—Without sound reasoning, no argument will cohere—Both parties, if they consent, cannot bestow jurisdiction to any of Tribunal or Court—Commission has to decide case within parameters set for deciding case of jurisdiction—Powers of Arbitrator cannot be equated with powers of National Commission—Arbitrator can consider commercial matters as well—Complainant is ‘not’ a consumer—National Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this case—Complaint dismissed and complainant given liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of its grievances. (Paras 21 to 25)
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member— This case has a chequered history, as the complaint was filed on 04.02.1994. This case also travelled to the Apex Court on an interim application. The Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the Civil Appeal, on 13.03.2013. Previously, it remained pending before the Arbitrator, for a considerable time. The key question which swirls around the controversy is, “Whether the transaction in question, is ‘commercial’ ? If so, what is its effect?”.
2. The facts of the case are these. M/s. Rohit Chemical & Allied Industries Pvt. Ltd., the complainant is registered Private Limited Company at Village Sallewal, Tehsil, Nallahgarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. The National Research Development Corporation, OP, has its office at New Delhi. The Regional Research Laboratory, Bhuvaneshwar, Odisha, developed a process for the manufacture of synthetic Iron Oxide, red and black, and other know-how given on the process. The full rights of the said invention were assigned to the OP Corporation by the said Laboratory. The complainant company approached the OP for the grant of licence of the above referred process to assess and invention. The OP Corporation agreed to grant licence to the complainant company to use the said invention and the process to manufacture and sell the articles, made in accordance with the said invention, covered by the Indian Patents Act, vide licence dated 01.3.1983, on a consideration of payment of Rs.5,000/-, for a period of 10 years from 01.02.1983. The complainant was to pay to the OP Corporation Royalty at 2½ on the net ex-factory sale price of the material manufactured by it in accordance with the said invention from the date of comments meant for its production. The amount of Rs.5,000/- was paid. The OP Corporation prepared a project report profile dated 17.03.1983, to provide the complainant the technical know-how and supplied the same to the complainant. As per the project report, the proposed total cost of the project was assessed at Rs.23,65,000/-. The OP Corporation also furnished the detailed specifications of the machinery, building and other various modes of development of land required for the project in this report.
3. Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation sanctioned the term loan vide letter dated 14.06.1984 and first installment of the loan was released on 22.01.1985. In accordance with the project file, construction and the installation of machinery activity started under the supervision of the OP. The complainant company incurred a sum of Rs.1,40,140.03 on the machinery and preliminary expenses. They further spent a sum of Rs.7,04,126.65 in the year 1984-85. The complainant company spent a sum of Rs.9,13,495.09 during the year 1985-86. The complainant company further spent a sum of Rs.6,28,699.80, in the year 1985-86, towards the land development and building construction.
4. In May, 1985, the Directors of the complainant company visited Regional Research Laboratory, Bhuvaneshwar, Odisha and met Dr. J.S.Murthy, the Project Co-ordinator and apprised him of the position of the project regarding completion of the construction of the building and also pleaded that they should finalise the details of the lay-out of the project at the earliest, so that it could be completed without any further undue delay as the company was incurring heavy interest on the capital investment. Dr.J.S. Murthy gave some suggestions. The recommendations were made available vide letter dated 02.04.1986 to the Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation. The complainant was also supplied by the Regional Research Laboratory, Bhuvaneshwar, Odisha, more data, including the flow-sheet, along with drawings of the machinery and the building. Thus, a complete year was lost/wasted due to the inefficiency and inaction on the part of the OP due to lapse in providing the correct know-how in the installation of the project.
5. It is thus clear that the original project file was not prepared with due care and diligence a
