AMIT STEELS Vs. HARYANA STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Ambala rejecting the complaint on the threshold ground that the complainant did not come within the ambit of the definition of a 'consumer'.

(2.) Since we are inclined to affirm the aforesaid preliminary jurisdictional issue, it is unnecessary to advert to the merits. Suffice it to mention that the appellant firm as its name indicates is a commercial concern, which had applied for the booking of iron and steel materials with the respondent Haryana State Small Industries and Export Corporation. Pursuant to that application, they also deposited some earnest money, therefor. The primal grievance spelt out in the complaint was that the deliveries of the material had not been made by the respondent Corporation in strict accordance with the alleged terms and conditions of the contract. The somewhat curious relief claimed in the consumer jurisdiction was that the respondent be directed to supply the raw material at old rates and the supplies in future be regularised, with payment of interest on earnest money and compensation for the supposed violation of the terms and conditions.

(3.) In resolutely defending the complaint, the respondents took up the threshold preliminary objection that the complainant did not even remotely come within the ambit of a consumer under the Act. Equally it was pointed out that the alleged purchase of raw material was for a commercial purpose and this would further render the complaint as non maintainable. On merits a very comprehensive reply was also filed to controvert the allegations.