Back
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KIRUBAKARAN
The Purchase Manager, Lanxess India Private Limited, Madurai
Versus
The President District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madurai & Another
W.P. No.2863 of 2009 & M.P(MD)No. 1 of 2009
Decided On :Decided On : 19-04-2010
Consumer Protection Act - Jurisdiction of Consumer Forum - Section 2(d), Section 2(g), Section 2(o) - The court held that the second respondent, a supplier, did not fit into the definition of a consumer under Section 2(d) and the act of supplying goods did not satisfy the definition of services in Section 2(o). The court found the second respondent's complaint to be frivolous and prohibited the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum from proceeding with the consumer complaint.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a purchaser, did not pay for the products delivered by the second respondent, alleging manufacturing defects. The second respondent filed a complaint before the Consumer Forum, and the petitioner sought a Writ of Prohibition to prohibit the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the second respondent, a supplier, did not fit the definition of a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and the complaint was frivolous. The court prohibited the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum from proceeding with the consumer complaint.
Issues: Jurisdiction of Consumer Forum, Definition of Consumer, Deficiency in Service
Ratio Decidendi: The second respondent, as a supplier, did not fit into the definition of a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. The act of supplying goods did not satisfy the definition of services, and the complaint was found to be frivolous.
Final Decision: The Writ of Prohibition was ordered, and the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum was prohibited from proceeding with the consumer complaint. No costs were awarded.
The opposite party in the original complaint before the Consumer Forum has come before this Court for issuance of Writ of prohibition prohibiting the first respondent, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madurai, from conducting the proceedings in C.C.No.236 of 2008.
2.The facts of the case, are as follows:
The second respondent was alleged to have supplied the products (Pallet Bag- Product Code No.500871)to the petitioner herein, as per the purchase order placed by it. The said products were also delivered to the writ petitioner by the second respondent on 10.10.2008.
3.As per the Purchase Order, the writ petitioner herein was required to pay the money within thirty days from the date of the receipt of the materials. However, the petitioner did not pay the amount quoting that there are certain manufacturing defects in the respondent/ complainants products. As the money was not paid for the products delivered to the writ petitioner, the second respondent issued a notice on 19-11-2008, through his Advocate.
4.The said notice was replied by the writ petitioner on 26-11-2008, stating that there were defective pallet bags supplied by the second respondent. Therefore, the writ petitioner asked the second respondent to supply new pallet bags in hundred numbers towards replacement and on such replacement, the amount would be settled. Though the second respondent rushed to the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum by way of C.C.No.236 of 2008 alleging deficiency in service.
5.After the receipt of notice from the Consumer Forum, the writ petitioner has come before this court by way of filing this Writ of Prohibition.
6.Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent could not be a "consumer" and there was no service rendered by the second respondent to the petitioner. Therefore, the question of invoking jurisdiction of Consumer Forum does not arise and the petition for Writ of Prohibition has been filed.
7.The respondents were served and M/s. P.Muthupandi and P.Murugan filed vakalat on behalf of the second respondent on 24.06.2009, and their names appeared in the cause list when the case was posted on 16-04-2010. As there was no representation on behalf of the second respondent, the matter has been posted for "orders" today. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the second respondent. Hence the matter was passed over. When the matter was called again there is no representation. Hence, this Court proceeds to decide the matter on merits as per the record available.
8.It is seen from the papers that the second respondent supplied the Pallet Bags to the petitioner and for some defects in the quality supplied by the second respondent, the petitioner did not pay the amount. In this regard there was exchange of correspondence between the parties.
9.A perusal of complaint would reveal that in paragraph 4 of the complaint it is stated as follows:
“The complainant submits that when the opposite party had taken delivery of the products supplied by the complainant in good conditions within his premises, the opposite party alone responsible for all the damages caused by him and his men. Theses acts of the opposite party clearly shows the deficiency of services on his part, which caused mental agony to the complainant.”
The prayer sought for in the complaint is extracted as follows:
“It is therefore prayed that this Honourable Forum may be pleased to pass orders in favour of the complainant
(a)directing the opposite party to make the payment of Rs.46,800/- towards the bill raised by the complainant, dated 10-10-2008 and accepted by the opposite party with interest @ 18% p.a from 10-10-2008, till date of payment,
(b)directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.4 Lakhs towards the compensation for the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and for the mental agony caused by him,
(c)directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of this complaint and
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
