Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM (Retd.),
Presiding Member
Mohd. Siddique Khan – Petitioner
versus
Forest Divisional Officer – Respondent
Revision Petition No.454 of 2019
(Against the Order dated 27/08/2018 in Appeal No. 2423/2010 of the State Commission Madhya Pradesh)
Decided on 1.5.2024
For the Petitioner:Mr. Tessy Varghese and Mr. Prashant K., Advocates
For the Respondent: None Appeared (Ex-parte Dt. 23.01.2024)
IMPORTANT POINT
Service provider – Complainant is an auction purchaser, the transaction he entered into with the OPs does not give rise to relationship between them as consumer and service provider.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58(1)(b)] – Service – Auction Purchase – Maintainability of Complaint – Whether the petitioner qualifies as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and whether the respondent, the Forest Department, has committed deficiency in service by failing to deliver goods purchased by the petitioner through auction within the stipulated time – Undisputedly, the Complainant purchased certain forest produce from the Respondent/OPs in auction. The entire dispute pertains to the auction purchase – On facts, Complainant is an auction purchaser, the transaction he entered into with the OPs does not give rise to relationship between them as consumer and service provider – Therefore, petition dismissed. [Paras 10 to 15].
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER
The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section -21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against impugned order dated 27.08.2018, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh (‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No.2423 of 2010. In this appeal, the Respondent /OP appeal was allowed, thereby set aside the Order dated 31.03.2010, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewa (“District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No. 180 of 2009, wherein the Complaint filed by the Complainant (Petitioner herein) was allowed.
2. There was a delay of 62 days in filing the present Revision Petition. For the reason stated in the application being IA No. 3814/2019, In the interest of justice, the same is condoned.
3. For convenience, the parties in the present matter are denoted as per their positions in the Consumer Complaint before the District Forum. Mohd. Siddique Khan who is a small timber merchant and engaged in the said business for his livelihood is identified as the Complainant. Meanwhile, “Forest Divisional Officer (General)” is identified as OP (Respondent herein).
4. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that on 28.02.2005 he purchased various items such as bamboo, wood, Ballis. flagstone (patiya) etc through an auction from the OP. While some of the materials were handed over to the Complainant, the OP failed to deliver the remaining items despite receiving full payment. He further alleged that upon visiting the Forest Division to collect the purchased material, he was denied access by the Forest Ranger, who acted in a secretive manner. Feeling aggrieved by these circumstances, the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint No. 180/2009 before the learned District Forum, seeking compensation equivalent to the current value of the purchased material amounting to Rs.4,96,145/-.
5. In reply, OP refuted the allegations presented in the complaint and asserted that the Complainant was required to collect the purchased material within a specified timeframe. However, on 07.05.2004, the Complainant collected only a portion of the material and failed to retrieve the remainder. Consequently, as per terms of sale, the Complainant’s payment was deposited in the State Govt Treasury. The OP also argued that the dispute stemmed from the auction process and was consequently time-barred, warranting dismissal of the complaint.
6. The learned District Forum vide order dated 31.03.2010, ruled in favor of the Complainant and directed the OP to furnish the entire quantity of wood, bamboo, and flagstone (patiya) to the Complainant as per the terms of the auction. In the event that the material could not be provided, the Forum instructed the OP to refund the corresponding amount to the Complainant. Being aggrieved by the District Forum order dated 31.10.2010, the OP filed Appeal No. 2423 of 2010 and the State Commission vide order dated 27.08.2018 allowed the Appeal, relying on Subhash Infra Engineers Pvt Ltd Vs Haryana Urban Development Authority 1(2015) CPJ 41 (NC). However, the State Commission directed the OP to refund the amount collected from the Complainant.
7. Being dissatisfied by the State Commission order dated 27.08.2018, the Petitioner/Complainant filed the instant Revision Petition No. 454 of 2019 mainly raising the following grounds:—
(a) The State Commission erred in rejecting the evidence of Raj Bahore Dahiya, the driver, and owner of the Tractor Trolley No.CPU 4124, who accompanied the Petitioner for taking delivery of the goods. The conclusion drawn that he did not go to take delivery of the goods within the stipulated time is unfounded and overlooks crucial evidence provided by the Petitioner.
(b) The State Commission did not note the evidence of the forest officials, particularly SN Prajapati, indicating that 548 units of flagstone was utilized for departmental purposes. This brought out their failure to deliver the complete goods
