LexRAJEEV METAL WORKS AND ORS. versus THE MINERAL METAL TRADING CORPN. OF INDIA LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A RAJEEV METAL WORKS AND ORS. v. THE MINERAL METAL TRADING CORPN. OF INDIA LTD. DECEMBER 1, 1995 B [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.] Co11sumer Protection Act, 1986-Sectiom 21, 23, 2( 1)( d)(i) & (ii)- Scope-'Co11sumer'-Deftnitio1i-Whe11 object of supply a11d purchase of goods being commercial purpose-Applicability of exclusio11ary clause u/s C 2(1)(d)(ii)-Deftnition of word 'consumer' u/s 2( l)(d)(ii) not attracted. The appellant set up an industry and put up an application to the District Industry Centre for the supply of about 300 M.T. of G.P. Steel Sheets. The General Manager of the District Industry Centre recom- D mended to the respondent, a statutory authority constituted to canalise the procurement of the canalised items for imports and for onward delivery to the consumer industries, of the appellants' reqniremenL After pooling the requirements of various industries, the respondent placed a con- solidated indent with a foreign seller for the supply of the total required quantity of the canalised items. The foreign seller expressed difficulty in E supplying the entire quantity due to some exigencies. The respondent wrote a letter to the appellants to receive 20% of the indented requirement but the appellants did not comply with it. Since the respondent had not supplied the required quantity demanded by the appellants, the appellants filed the complaints before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal F Commission u/s 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Commission dismissed the complaint while holding that the transaction involved in this case was only one of sale of goods for commercial purpose and not an agreement for rendering any service for consideration and therefore the controversy raised in this case coul.d not be regarded as a Consumer Dispute which could appropriately be brought this Forum. This appeal u/s G 23 had been filed against the order of the National Commission. The appellants contended that the respondent had nndertaken to render ser- vice to the appellants for procuring the required quantity of the G.P. Sheets; that the appellants had paid what was demanded from them and had complied with all the conditions mentioned in the letter and having H · had the goods supplied by the foreign sellers, instead of delivering the 118 RAJEEV METAL WORKS v. M.M.T.C.I. LTD. 119 goods to the appellants diverted them for extraneons consideration to A others, thereby, the appellant had suffered damages and sought recovery thereof from the respondent for its failnre to render services nnder the contract; that various letters exchanged between the appellants and the respondent would clearly show that the transaction was one of service contract to be rendered by the respondent to the appellants and doe to B deficiency in the service, the appellants suffered the damages and conse- quentially, the appellants as consumer u/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act were entitled to redressal from the Commission and the Commission was not right in rejecting the claim of the appellants on the ground that it was a commercial transaction; that the word 'commercial' used in the definition requires broader construction in a normal trading sense since it being in C the nature of the exception and when it is used in the context of resale, the words 'transaction of sale' must be construed to niean direct sale between the boyer and the seller as consumer goods but not when the goods are intended to be consumed for manufacturing purpose to produce a distinct- ly identifiable different commercial commodity and therefore, section D 2(1)(d)(i) was not attracted to the facts in this case. The respondent contended that there was no direct relationship of buyer and seller between the appellants and the foreign suppliers; that the appellants had opened letters of credit with the respondent and had agreed to take delivery of the goods to be supplied by the respondent after getting them from the foreign suppliers and subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein and in furtherance thereof, the respondent had opened letters of credit directly with the foreign suppliers within the exclusionary clause of section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act which defines 'consumer'. The ques- tion raised for consideration was whether the appellant firm was a con- sumer. Dismissing the appeal, this Court E F HELD : l.l. The definition of 'consumer' requires to be interpreted broadly so as to give e
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.