CHIEF ENGINEER, GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs SUCHI DISTRIBUTORS

COMPLAINANT is Gujarat Electricity Board (Board for short) and it has filed this complaint to recover Rs. 1,39,011/- together with interest and cost from the opponent, a partnership-firm.

THE Board had placed order with the opponent for purchase of goods for Rs. 1,39,011/-. THE goods were sent by the opponent by Railway and Railway receipts dated 12.12.91, 17.12.91 and 21.2.92 were despatched by the opponent through Bank. In Railway receipts consignee was shown as "self". THE Railway receipts etc. were sent through Union Bank of India, Vadodara and they were to be retired from Bank of Baroda, Gandhinagar. It is the case of the Board that it came to know about the receipts sent as aforesaid only on 30.3.92. When it went to retire the documents from Bank of Baroda at Gandhinagar, it was told to pay additional amount of Rs. 1,128/-. Since the Board was not liable to pay the said amount, it wrote to the opponent by letter dated 10.4.92 to instruct the Bank to allow it to retire the documents without payment of aforesaid additional amount. THE Bank informed the Board by letter dated 13.5.1992 that it was not required to pay the additional amount. This letter was received on or about 19.5.92 and thereafter the Board paid the balance of the amount to the Bank and retired the documents. THE goods were to be sent to Gandhinagar or Amli Road Station. THE opponent had however despatched them to Ahmedabad Railway Station. When the Board enquired about the goods by production of the receipts retired from the Bank, it was told that the goods were sold by auction on 26.3.1992 and 28.5.92. THE Railway administration also rejected the claim made by the Board. On the above grounds, the Board has filed this complaint for recovery of the amount as aforesaid. This complaint is resisted by the opponent by its written Exhibit 10 and it has, among other things, contended that the Board is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, and, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. It has denied the allegations made by the complainant. We do not consider it necessary to set out the contentions raised by the opponent, since in our opinion/ the dispute which is raised by the Board m this complaint cannot be resolved under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and, therefore, this complaint is not maintainable.

In our opinion this is a case of breach of contract for sale of goods. The Board had placed order for goods with the opponent and according to it the goods were to be delivered to it at Gandhinagar or Amli Road Railway Station. The goods were despatched under Railway receipts which were forwarded through the Bank as aforesaid. There was dispute regarding additional amount claimed by the Bank and, therefore, the documents could not be retired by the Board till 4.6.92. However, before the documents could be retired/ the Railway administration had sold the goods by public auction. The Railway administration also refused to entertain the claim made by the Board. The above facts clearly show that it is a case of alleged breach of contract on the part of opponent in supplying the goods alleged to have been purchased by the Board. The Board had not hired services of opponent for consideration. As stated above, it had entered into contract for purchase of goods with opponent and even if the allegations made in the complaint are held to be true, as observed above, it is a case of breach of contract on the part of the opponent. However, the Board cannot claim to be a consumer within the meaning of the definition of consumer contained in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act and the dispute raised by the Board cannot be resolved under the provisions of the said Act. In our opinion, therefore, this complaint is not maintainable.

IN the result, this complaint is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.