Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member, Vinay Kumar, Member
Varalakshmi Starch Industries (P) Ltd - Complainant
Versus
Man Rollo Generations India (P) Ltd. & Anr. - Opposite Parties
Consumer Complaint No. 297 of 2012
Decided On : 0 3-12-2012
For the Complainant :Mr. Vipin Jai and Mr. Vipul Jai, Advocates.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, emphasizing the criteria of self-employment or earning livelihood for qualification.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Complainant - Companies Act 1956, Consumer Protection Act
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a company registered under the Companies Act 1956, entered into a purchase agreement with an opposite party for the supply of biogas fuel gensets. The opposite party failed to deliver the complete consignment as per the agreement terms, leading to a dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant failed to establish that they are a consumer as per the explanation appended to Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.
Issues: The key issue was whether the complainant qualified as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court referenced legal provisions and interpretations from previous cases to determine the definition of a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act. It highlighted that a person who purchases goods for self-employment or for earning their livelihood qualifies as a consumer.
Final Decision: The complaint was dismissed at the admission stage, with the court stating that the complainant could seek remedy from an appropriate forum or civil court.
ORDER :
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member
The key controversy pivots around the question is whether the complainant is a consumer? The facts to understand the problem are these. The complainant Varalakshmi Starch Industries (P) Ltd. is a company registered under the Companies Act 1956 and transacts the following business:
| (i) | To manufacture, produce, refine, buy, sell, export, import or otherwise deal in all types of Tapioca and Maize starch, sago, glucose, dextrine, glues, dextrose and all kinds of Tapioca and Maize products. |
| (ii) | To manufacture, produce, refine, buy, sell, export, import or otherwise deal in all types of products manufactured out of tapioca and Maize. |
| (iii) | To carry on business of generating, selling, transmitting, distributing, supplying either directly or through others, electrical energy by using coal, lignite, wind energy, solar energy, tidal energy, wave energy, hydro energy and other methods for captive use or otherwise. |
2. On 19.08.2009, the purchase agreement was entered into between the complainant and Man Rollo Generations India (P) Ltd, Opposite Party No. 1 for fixing price and excise duty, mode of payment with payment schedule and delivery schedule for engineering, supply, Erection, commissioning, test run, trial run, performance Test and maintenance of the biogas fuel based densets. There was mutual agreed agreement in the said set.. Opposite Party No. 1 vide its letter dated 23.11.2009 informed the complainant that it proposes to execute the order and fulfill their obligations under the aforesaid agreement through their holding company i.e. M/s. Power Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd., Opposite Party No. 2 as it was internally decided by both the companies Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No/2.to merge. Opposite Party No. 1 also informed the complainant in the said letter that as the process of merger would envisage compliances and court procedures which would take some time, they felt it proper and correct in the mutual interest of complainant and Opposite Party No. 1 to assign the above contract in favour of Opposite Party No. 2 by entering into suitable Tripartite Agreement between Opposite Party No. 1, Opposite Party No. 2 and the complainant which would ensure transfer of the obligations and rights mutatis mutandis under the original agreement to Opposite Party No. 2 without compromising the interest of the complainant in the contract.
3. Accordingly a Tripartite agreement was executed on 17.01.2010 whereby the Opposite Party No. 2 accepted the assignment of the contract to transferring all the terms, conditions, commitments and responsibilities etc. mutatis mutandis alongwith the advance received by Opposite Party No. 1 of the contract to them as if Opposite Party No. 2 has been the original party to the contract in place of Opposite Party No. 1. The complainant agreed to enter into the Tripartite agreement only upon incorporating the original condition in the said Tripartite agreement. On 27.01.2010, opposite party no. 2 vide its letter dated 27.01.2010 asked the complainant for opening of two L.C.s in their favour for Rs. 2,77,20,000/- totally as per the payment terms in the agreement for the first batch of four gensets. Opposite party no. 2 also promised that upon establishment of L.C.s, they shall affect the shipment of four number of biogas fuel gensets with all auxiliaries in single consignment as per the agreement terms. Accordingly, the complainants opened an irrevocable LC for an amount of Rs. 2,49,48,000/- with State Bank of India, Siruthozil Branch, Salem on 30.01.2010 and another irrevocable LC for a sum of Rs. 27,72,000/- towards successful commissioning of all four Gensets on 30.01.2010.
4. The complainant issued cheque for Rs. 31,72,000/- towards excise duty payable by the complainant in respect of four Gensets. On 21.03.2011,
