E. SADANANDAN vs BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARD

- THIS is an appeal against the order dated 25th February, 1991 passed by the State Commission of Kerala in Complaint No. 45 of 1990. By this order, the State Commission dismissed the complaint on the ground that the claim for damages or compensation arising out of an event that occurred in 1983 had become time barred inasmuch as the claim for compensation was put forward after the expiry of about seven years after the cause of action arose.

THE facts briefly are that the complainant Shri Sadanandan was manufacturing tea chest metal fittings. He had obtained a licence from the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) to affix the ISI mark on his products in 1979. In April, 1983, the complainant''s factory was inspected by an officer of the BIS who asked him to stop production and marketing of goods with ISI marking on the ground of "some irregularities". However, this prohibition against ISI marking lifted in August, 1983 as the samples of the products manufactured by him were found to be in conformity with the ISI specifications. According to the complainant "because of the suspension of marking and the wide publicity to the suspension given by the 1st Opposite Party, the complainant lost almost all his orders". According to him, the illegal and unwarranted suspension of his licence destroyed his business goodwill. The complainant has further alleged that he asked for enhancement of the loan limit from the State Bank of India but this was not sanctioned, with the result, that he could not utilise the import licence obtained by him for manufacturing and supplying goods with ISI mark as well as non-ISI metal fittings. Because of lack of adequate credit facilities being given by the Bank, the complainant''s factory became sick and was so declared in 1987.

In short, according to the complainant, because of the unwarranted suspension of the complainant''s licence to use ISI mark on his products and non-supply of adequate credit by the State Bank of India led to the closure of his unit.

AFTER hearing the parties and going through the record, we fully agree with the finding of the State Commission that the complain- ant''s claim for damages and compensation is very stale and has become time barred. We also wish to observe that the Bureau of Indian Standards in licensing parties to use ISI marks on their products is performing as statutory authority a regulatory function to ensure production of quality products in the interest of the consumers. Licencing by BIS is not a service rendered to licensed manufacturer of goods, by the licensor for a consideration nor can the licence fee be treated as consideration for supplying any goods or rendering any service to the licensee.

LIKEWISE, no deficiency of service on the part of the Bank has been established merely because it did not consider the party as eligible for enhancement of loan limits or for grant of further credit facilities. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the order of the State Commission is confirmed. There is no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.