BHAGWATI TRADERS Vs. NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint has been filed by and on behalf of Bhagwati Traders against National Fertilizers Limited and Union of India through Secretary, Department of Fertilizers stating that the respondent. National Fertilizers Limited introduced a scheme called Quota-holder Scheme in 1994 and asked its dealers to deposit an amount in the multiple of Rs. 1,25,000.00 for supply of a quota of 2500 M.T. of urea. It has been further stated in the complaint that the complainant deposited Rs. 2,50,000.00 for the supply of 5000 M.T. of urea, but during the year ending 31st March, 1996, the requisite quantity of urea on regular basis was not supplied to it. It has also been complained that even though during the months of January-February, 1996, two rakes of urea were sent to Firozpur, no supply was made available to the complainant despite the fact that the complainant had deposited the requisite amount. It has also been complained that the supply of urea, instead, was made to Modern Fertilizers, another dealer. The complainant also filed a compensation application under Sec. 12B of the MRTP Act, 1969 (the Act for brief) claiming compensation amounting to Rs. 17,28,680.00 and also an application for interim relief.

(2.) The interim relief application was considered on 14th Oct., 1998 and arguments addressed by both the Advocates for the applicant/complainant as well as the respondents were heard. It transpired that a similar complaint under Sec. 36B(d) and Sec. 10(a)(iv)of the Act registered as CW 250/98 was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Commission by its order dated 14th Oct., 1998. The complaint was rejected on the rounds that the complainant was not a consumer for the purposes of the Act. Another ground for rejection of the complaint was that no documents had been placed on record by the complainant in support of its main grievance that the respondent had been refusing to deal with it. It was observed in that order that termination of dealership of the applicant/ complainant was a question between the complainant and the respondent and the Commission would not be justified in interfering with contractual relations between the parties. The interim relief application under Sec. 12A of the Act was also disposed of stating that although a trader could approach the Commission under Sec. 12A, an application under Sec. 12A was for seeking an incidental relief of interim measure and a substantive relief could not be provided under Sec. 12A of the Act. Moreover, as the complainant could not get substantive relief, it could not also press for incidental relief also.

(3.) In view of the above ruling of the Division Bench contained in its order passed in CW 250/ 98, the present complaint and the compensation application by the complainant on the same grounds is rejected as not maintainable and similarly the applications under Sec. 12A cannot be entertained. The applicant/ complainant is a dealer and the relationship between the parties is in the nature of a contract and the Commission cannot direct specific performance of the agreement between the parties. The complainant may approach the competent Civil Court for this purpose as Sec. 4 of the Act is quite clear and the MRTP Act is intended to supplement and not to supplant the ordinary law. As the complaint filed by the applicant/complainant has not been found to be maintainable, the interim relief application has also to be rejected. C.A. dismissed.