RAINBOW INTERNATIONAL Vs. M M T C LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant entered into an arrangement/agreement with the respondent MMTC, whereby MMTC was to procure orders for export of scientific equipments by the appellant to Jordan. A memorandum of understanding dated 06.05.1994 was executed between the parties in this regard whereunder the complainant/appellant was to pay 3% service charges on the F.O.B. value of the products to MMTC, out of the price of the export product realized by it. The appellant submitted its tender alongwith catalogue etc. to MMTC. for onward transmission to the Ministry of Education, Jordan, which was the overseas buyer in this case. The complainant/appellant also furnished a performance guarantee dated 22.02.1996 for a sum of Rs. 3,05,000/ - to MMTC, for a period of 12 months. MMTC in turn submitted a performance guarantee to the overseas buyer i.e. Ministry of Education, Jordan. Since no order was placed with the complainant/appellant through MMTC, there was no occasion for it to supply the scientific equipments through the said agency. The bank guarantee which the appellant/complainant had furnished to the MMTC was invoked by the said agency. Claiming that it has made huge investment in procuring the scientific equipment, which it was to supply to Jordan and also aggrieved from the invocation of the bank guarantee, the appellant filed a complaint before the State Commission, Delhi, pleading deficiency in providing service on the part of the MMTC, and seeking the following amounts: -

(2.) THE complaint was resisted by the MMTC, inter -alia, on the ground that the transaction between the parties being a commercial transaction, the appellant/complainant was not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. It was further stated that the appellant/complainant was directly in touch with the Ministry of Education, Jordan, which was contrary to the terms of the arrangement between the parties and it had succeeded in obtaining a purchase order directly in its name. It was claimed by the MMTC that the appellant/complainant had suffered damages on account of its own lapses for which the MMTC could not be held responsible.

(3.) THE State Commission vide impugned order dated 30.04.2007, inter -alia, held as under: -