AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS order shall dispose of two Appeal Nos. 104 and 105 of 1994 filed by Steel Authority of India against the orders dated 16th December, 1993, whereby complaints have been allowed and the appellants have been directed to refund the security amount deposited by the complainants, which had been illegally confiscated. Since the factual and legal position in both the complaints is the same and both the complaints have been decided by identical orders dated 16th December, 1993, both the appeals are also disposed of by one and the same order.
COMPLAINANT- Company deposited certain amounts by way of security with the Steel Authority of India for the purchase of raw material for the manufacturing purpose in their industry. Due to frequent strikes in the industrial units i.e. from 8th March, 1988 to 30th April, 1988; 15th June, 1988 to 30th June, 1988 and 11th July, 1988 to 13th August, 1988, the complainants had to close the industry. However, when the refund of the security amount deposited by the complainants with the Steel Authority of India along with interest thereon was demanded by the complainants, the request was declined and feeling aggrieved against that the complainants approached the District Forum for the redressal of their grievance. In reply, the Steel Authority of India pleaded that security amount deposited by the complainants had been confiscated as the complainants had failed to inform the Steel Authority of India about the strike of the labour soon thereafter and that in any case, the dispute being of a commercial nature, the complaints were not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. After going into the matter in detail and considering the evidence produced by the parties, the learned District Forum repelled the objection regarding the dispute being of commercial nature and allowed the complaints by directing Steel Authority of India to refund the security amount deposited by the complainants along with 18% interest thereon. In the appeals before us, Mr. M.S. Rakkar, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants has vehemently contended that the complaints were not maintainable as the raw material to be purchased by the complainants was for a commercial purpose and therefore, the complainants could not invoke the jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act. In support - of his contention, the learned Counsel has placed firm reliance on the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute reported as II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC)= 1995 (3) JT 433. After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant in detail and having gone through the record, we do not find any legal infirmity in the detailed and well-reasoned orders passed by the learned District Forum. In the aforesaid judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellants it has been held as under: "Whether the purpose for which a person has bought goods is a "commercial purpose" within the meaning of the definition of expression "consumer" in Section 2(d) of the Act is always a question of fact to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case."
In order to ascertain the purpose of the purchase of raw material in the present case by the complainants, we have sent for the records of the case from the District Forum and have gone through the same. From the perusal of the record, we find that the Steel Authority of India has failed to establish on record the purpose of the purchase of raw material as commercial purpose, in order to non-suit the complainants and to deprive them from invoking jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act. In fact, as the raw material had not been even brought to the industrial premises of the complainants the pre- judging of its nature or otherwise did not arise. In other words, unless the raw material had been used, converted into some other goods and then sold to some prospective buyers, it could not be pre-judged only by guess work or surmises, that had it been purchased by the complainants, the same would have been used by them for the commercial purpose. Therefore, judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court if at all, helps the respondents. Consequently, both the appeals are dismissed and the orders of the learned District Forum are upheld. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeals dismissed. _______________