JAIN AGENCIES Vs. GODREJ SOAPS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the complainant challenging order of the District Forum, Faridkot dated August 1, 1996 whereby his complaint was dismissed with costs of Rs.1,000/-.

(2.) The complainant, Jain Agencies, Faridkot at the relevant time, a dealer of goods manufactured by opposite party No.1, Godrej Soaps Ltd. placed an order for getting soap detergent valuing Rs.27,225/- which were sent through transporter on February 28,1990. Opposite party No.1 entrusted the goods to CITCO India Pvt. Ltd. , opposite party No.2, who subsequently entrusted the goods to opposite party No.3, Gaba Transport Company, Faridkot. The goods were sent from Zirakpur to Faridkot. M/s. Gaba Soaps Ltd. was shown as the consignor as well as the consignee. The goods receipt, invoice etc. were sent through Bank. The complainant was to get the papers released on making payment and take delivery of the goods from the transporter. The complainant got the documents released from the Bank on May 5, 1990 and approached the Gaba Transport Company, Faridkot for taking delivery of the goods which had been observed by him as lying there. Since goods were not delivered, the present complaint was filed, claiming a sum of Rs.17,228/- plus interest thereon @ 20% per mensum amounting to Rs.5,504/- and sales tax of Rs.1,516/-. A sum of Rs.10,000/- towards damages were also claimed. In a supplementary complaint, a sum of Rs.1,000/- deposited by the complainant by way of security with Godrej Soaps Ltd. was also sought to be refunded. Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 did not appear before the District Forum. The complaint was contested by Gaba Transport Company. After getting evidence on affidavits of the parties before the Dist was passed. Although, the appeal was filed through Mr. Raj Kumar Arora, Advocate who had been appearing on the dates fixed did not put in appearance at the time of hearing arguments on January 13, 1997. Counsel for the respondent appeared and argued the case. We have gone through the grounds of appeal and the record of the District Forum and find no cogent ground to interfere with the order passed by the District Forum.

(3.) One of the grounds of appeal relates to denial of the claim against the Godrej Soaps Ltd. with respect to Rs.1,000/- security deposited. The District Forum rightly Held that transaction between the complainant and opposite party No.1 was of a commercial nature. The complainant being a dealer of Godrej Soaps Ltd. , got goods for sale. Thus, qua Godrej Soaps Ltd. , the complainant could not be treated as a consumer to claim any relief. The complainant is left to seek remedy if any against Godrej Soaps Ltd. , with respect to security deposited in a Civil Court. This contention is repelled.