SURENDRA CHEMICALS Vs. INDIAN DRUGS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this consumer complaint, we sought a response from the opposite parties regarding the admissibility of the consumer complaint under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Having heard Sh. Surendra Singh Rana, proprietor of the complainant proprietorship firm and the learned Counsel for the opposite parties, we are of the considered view that the dispute raised is not a consumer dispute and, therefore, the complaint cannot legally be admitted for decision on merits, for the reasons to follow.

(2.) IN the consumer complaint, following reliefs have been claimed: "(a) Directing IDPL Virbhadra, Rishikesh to pay the sum of Rs. 28,98,000 to the complainant as principal amount due towards supply of calcium chloride. (b) For directing IDPL Virbhadra, Rishikesh to pay interest @ 9% per annum which comes out to be Rs. 56,59,920. (c) For directing to pay Rs. 5,00,000 as damages caused to the complainant for loss of his business and property of the firm due to auction by U.P.F.C. (d) For directing to pay Rs. 3,00,000 for mental agony caused to the complainant. (e) For directing to pay Rs. 5,00,000 for loss of health to the complainant and his treatment due to the loss caused to the complainant as a result of unfair trade practice/tactics of delaying/not making payments to the creditors of IDPL Virbhadra, Rishikesh and due to this policy adopted by the peak officers, IDPL Virbhadra, Rishikesh did not pay the complainant and others."

(3.) AVERMENTS of the complaint make it abundantly clear that the complainant had been supplying calcium chloride (Technical and CP grade) to the opposite parties. The price of the product supplied from the year 1989 to 1990, has not been paid. These averments and the reliefs claimed, clearly indicate that the claim pertains to the price of the goods supplied and per se, the complainant do not fall under the category of "consumer" as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act.