SAWHNEY EXPORT HOUSE Vs. APPAREL EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly the facts are that the complainant is carrying on the business as exporter of readymade garments. The opposite party has been sponsored by Ministry of Commerce, Government of India and constituted for issuing quota certificates and export certificates etc. to the exporters of garments etc. It regulates the distribution of all types of export quotas, allocates quotas and grants permission for export of different types of garments to the exporters against 5% Bank Guarantee/bank drafts called earnest money deposit (EMD) as a guarantee for utilization of full quantity of quota allotted. In case the exporter utilizes the full quota, he is entitled to refund of the EMD.

(2.) It is averred that the complainant had been depositing 5% EMD by Bank Draft for the utilization of full quantity of export quota allotted to them. The opposite party was bound to release the earnest money deposit on receipt of the proof of shipment of the goods. They, after utilizing the quota, it is alleged, furnished proof of shipment of the goods, to the opposite party. However, they failed to release EMD to them. Even according to the trial balance summary of the balance sheet of the opposite party for the year ending 31st March'86, an amount of Rs.1,28,280.07 is due to the complainant on that account from them. Consequently, they have prayed that the respondent be directed to refund the EMD amount of Rupees 1,28,280.07 with interest @ 24% p. a. with quarterly rests w. e. f.1.1.85 to 1.5.92. It is further prayed that the complainant be granted compensation @ 24.48%, which comes to Rs.1,73,501/-. The amount of interest claimed is Rs.5,80,469/-. Thus the total amount claimed by the complainant comes to Rs.8,82,250.07.

(3.) The complaint has been contested by the opposite party. They have denied the claim of the complainant. A preliminary objection has been raised by them that the complainant is not a 'consumer' as the work of the respondent does not fall within the definition of the word 'service' as given in Sec.2 (1) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). It is not necessary to reproduce the pleas on merits taken by the opposite party as the only preliminary question on which the arguments were addressed is that the complainant is not a 'consumer' and is not entitled to file the complaint.