SANCTACLAUSE APPARELS Vs. VIKAS FABRICS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This complaint cannot be entertained and deserves to be dismissed at the initial stage. In nutshell, the complainant is in the position of a Commission Agent who claims compensation from a seller of the goods - the opposite party whose goods were sent to the foreign buyer which were partly accepted and partly rejected. The claim made in the complaint is to the tune of Rs.19,01,300/- with 20% p. a. interest thereon on account of damages etc. The complainant-firm M/s. Sanctaclause Apparels is a partnership concern of five persons as mention in para 1 of the complaint. There was memorandum of understanding/agreement dated May 27,1993 whereby complainant undertook to sell the stocks of the opposite party. The opposite party had approached the complainant for the purpose and were willing to give rebate of 10% to 15% and a commission of 61/4%. The goods were to be subject to approval, after inspection and further unapproved goods were to be rejected. The opposite parties supplied goods to the complainant which were further consigned to the foreign countries. The foreign buyers on inspection for the goods as supplied rejected the same and thus the complainant suffered loss due to unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite parties in not sending the quality goods. Under different heads compensation was claimed which included part of the commission for the goods supplied and accepted and part of commission for the goods which were rejected.

(2.) As briefly stated above, the complainant is in the situation of a Commission Agent, who is to get his commission on the price of the goods supplied by the opposite parties to the foreign buyer. There is no question of the complainant having hired the services of the opposite parties on payment of consideration that the complainant could be treated as a consumer as defined under Sec.2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act. In case Clause (i) of Sec.2 (d) was to be attracted, the complainant otherwise could not be treated as a consumer having purchased goods from the opposite party as the goods were further resold to the foreign buyers. The contention of Counsel for the complainant that all the partners being graduates were doing the business for their livelihood and thus would be included in the definition of consumer, cannot be accepted. This would be a clear case of purchase of goods for further sale as such and not for consumption or use by the complainant for earning livelihood. The complaint is therefore, dismissed as the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Act.