K R RAMASAMY Vs. O M NOORUDEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision Petition No. 630 of 1995 filed against the order dated 31.5.95 of the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal No. 437/95 and Revision Petition No. 161 of 1996 filed against the order dated 29.11.95 of the said Commission in Appeal No. 750/95 arise out of the order dated 11.1.95 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dindigul in O.P. No. 165/94. The complainant before the District Forum is the Revision Petitioner in Revision Petition No. 161/96 while opposite party No. 1 is the Revision Petitioner in Revision Petition No. 630/95 and opposite party No. 2 is the respondent in Revision Petition No. 161/96.

(2.) Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The complainant wanted sub-dealership from the opposite parties, who were dealing in kerosene and paid certain amounts on different dates to the opposite party No. 1 for the said purpose and also incurred expenditure for nominating retailers, purchase of empty barrels etc. Since the opposite parties failed to give him sub-dealership he suffered loss and damages. The opposite parties remained ex-parte before the District Forum. Based on an affidavit and documents, the District Forum concluded that the complainant is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 60,250/- in all. In the result, the Forum directed the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 to jontly and severally pay to the complainant this sum of Rs. 60,250/-, Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1,000/- by way of costs. The appeal preferred by the first opposite party before the State Commission (Appeal No. 437/95) was dismissed on the ground that there was no record to substantiate the contention that there was no deficiency in service; opposite party No. 1 preferred a Revision Petition (R.P. No. 630/95) before us against this order. However, the appeal preferred by the second opposite party before the State Commission (A.P. No. 750/95) was allowed on the ground that the complainant does not fall under the definition of "Consumer" under Section 2(1)(d) of C.P.A. and the order of the District Forum was set aside; the complainant preferred a Revision Petition (R.P. No. 161/96) against this order of the State Commission.

(3.) We have considered both the revision petitions and heard the complainant in person and Counsel for the opposite parties. We agree with the finding of the State Commission in Appeal No. 750/95 that the complainant who wanted sub-dealership to purchase kerosene and sell it to consumers in the village is excluded from the purview of the Section 2(1)(d) of C.P.A. The complainant's proposed activity is one of resale and the State Commission was right in holding that the remedy for the complainant may be in a Civil Court. We, therefore, allow the Revision Petition No. 630/95 filed by the opposite party No. 1 and dismiss the Revision Petition No. 161/96 filed by the complainant. The order of the State Commission in A.P. No. 750/95 is confirmed and the complaint is dismissed. No costs. Revision Petition No. 630/95 allowed. Revision Petition No. 161/96 dismissed.