M R ANANTHAPADMANABHARAO Vs. SOUTH EASTERN ROADWAYS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the short point for consideration is whether the conclusion arrived at by the District Forum that the complainant was not a consumer is not sustainable.

(2.) The complainant, who is a supplier of chemicals sent a consignment of 'hydrasine hydrate' (hereinafter called 'the goods') to Cochin Refineries Ltd. (hereinafter called 'crl') through opposite party No.1-M/s. South Eastern Roadways, under invoice dated 5.8.1991. In the quotation, the complainant had stipulated that the value of goods was to be paid either in advance at the time of placing the purchase order or the documents of title to the goods would be negotiated through a Bank. This condition was meant to ensure that the complainant was paid the money due to him before CRL obtained possession of the goods. The CRL had signified in its purchase order that it prefers to have the documents of title to the goods negotiated through opposite party No.2-State Bank of Travancore.

(3.) It is the case of the complainant that in terms of this arrangement, CRL made payment of a sum of Rs.54,132/- to opposite party No.2 towards value of the goods consigned by the complainant, but opposite party No.2, instead of making it over to the complainant on due delivery of the goods, returned the money to CRL unlawfully. It is stated that opposite party No.1 on its part has delivered the goods to CRL without collecting the requisite lorry receipt from the consignee-CRL in flagrant violation of business norms and time-honoured commercial practice. This, according to the complainant, has resulted in an avoidable loss of Rs.89,872/-, including interest and compensation for business oriented anxiety and anguish. He has, therefore, approached the District Forum to award necessary relief to cover the loss incurred by him.