AGARWAL GRAIN SYNDICATE Vs. SHASKIYA VASAHAT GRAHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners which were the Opposite Parties before the District Forum have filed this Revision Petition against the order and judgment dated 12.7.2007 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra (in short, 'the State Commission') in appeal No. 979/2000 whereby the State Commission upholding the order of the District Forum has dismissed the appeal filed by the Petitioners. Facts: Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Complainant / Respondent (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent") is a Co-operative Consumer Society for the Government Colony, Bandra. It is running four ration shops approved by the Government of Maharashtra in the Government colony at Bandra. Petitioner is a partnership firm and in September, 1987 it was appointed as authorized agent by the Government of Maharasthra for supply of ration articles under Maharashtra Food Grains Rationing (Second) Order, 1966 (for short, "Order, 1966"). Government of Maharashtra appointed the Petitioner firm (hereinafter to be referred as "Petitioner") as its agent under 10(A) of Maharasthra Food Grains Rationing (Second) Regulations, 1966 for the purpose of procuring indent, food grain and sugar from the Controller of Rationing and for transportation from Government's godowns to the four shops being run by the Respondent. Petitioner was to purchase the articles from the Government godowns and then deliver the same to the Respondent after taking the payment. However, despite receiving Rs. 2,98,060.44 from the Respondent, Petitioner did not supply ration articles with the contention that the said articles were not available at Government godowns. When office bearers of the Respondent approached the partners of the Petitioner firm they informed them that due to financial difficulties the firm could not indent and procure ration articles as per requisition of the Respondent. Respondent then approached the Controller of Rationing, Mumbai who after due enquiry informed the Respondent that the Petitioner after taking delivery orders on the basis of requisition of four shops of the Respondent, collected certain ration articles but misappropriated the ration articles by selling them to somebody else instead of supplying them to ration shops of the Respondent. Controller of Rationing, Mumbai cancelled the authorization issued to the Petitioner which was later on confirmed by the concerned Minister. Aggrieved by this, Respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking refund of Rs. 2,98,060.44 along with interest @ 21% in addition to compensation and costs.

(2.) Petitioner, on being served, entered appearance and pleaded that the Respondent was not a 'consumer' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. That the complaint suffered from mis-joinder of parties as the Controller of Rationing which was a necessary party was not impleaded as a party Respondent. It was admitted that the Petitioner was the authorized agent of the State of Maharasthra. It used to collect the payments from the fair price shops and hand it over to the Controller of Rationing who in turn used to issue delivery orders in respect of the grains and other articles to be supplied to the fair price shops. That the Petitioner was simply a handling agent and had not given any service to the Respondent's shops. It was further pleaded that the authorization was arbitrarily cancelled by the Controller of Rationing at the behest of the Respondent. That it had filed the appeal before the Hon'ble Minister, Food Civil Supplies but its authorization was not restored back. That the complaint filed by the Respondent was without any substance as the prosecution was pending in Session Court. It was submitted that the Petitioner firm had been dissolved. That the Petitioner was not guilty of any deficiency in service and the complaint deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioner to refund the sum of Rs. 2,98,060.44 to the Respondent along with interest @ 18% p.a. w.e.f. 1.1.1995 till realization. Rs. 22,327.50 were awarded as compensation and Rs. 2,000 as costs. Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned order.