ORISSA CONSUMER ASSOCIATION vs Bidhu Bhusan Das

THIS is a complaint under Section 18 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') filed by a recognised Consumer Association and six individuals against eight brick manufacturers and two Government officers with one statutory body.

CASE of complainants is that the brick manufacturers (Opposite Parties) do not confirm to standard laid down by public works department as the size of the brick differs, arrangement for burning of bricks is defective, bricks are not free from holes, humps and grits, there is excessive brakage in course of transport, watering stacking strength of the bricks does not confirm to the national standard i.e. 75 kgs. per sq. meter, bricks break when thrown flat from a height of 1.2 to 1.5 meters which is below the norm brick soak more water than 1/7th of its weight, there being no classification bricks, price is uniform in respect of all bricks, statutory authorities do not supervise to ensure supply of good bricks to the consumers, price has been kept high since manufacturers have formed an association and increase in price is disproportionate to the cost involved. Complainants have prayed to set up a Commission to give report within two months recommending measures to ensure proper size, quality and price of bricks and to direct manufacturers to pay compensation. On receipt of notice and copy of complaint, Opposite Party No. 2 stated its case separately. Opposite Party Nos. 3, 7 & 8 stated their case jointly. Other opposite parties did not state their respective cases. Opposite Party No. 2 denied to be the manufacturer of ''P. Lal'' brand bricks. Opposite Party Nos. 3, 7 & 8 while not disputing to be manufacturer of bricks, state that bricks manufactured are of the conventional size of 9/3" x 4.7/6" x 2.15/16" known nominally as 10" x 5" x 3". Cost of brick depends of the weather condition, cost of labour, availability of coal in time. Brick manufacturing season begins from November till end of May. In 1989-90, there was unusual rain from mid February causing mid heavy damage to raw bricks compelling manufacturers to increase the price due to low production at higher cost. Opposite Parties stated that a joint complaint prejudices them as individual suffering and cause of the suffering cannot be answered effectively.

A complainant jointly by several consumers is entertainable as has been held by National Commission in the decision reported in 1991 (2) CPR 124 reported in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. & Others v. Birakishore Rout & Others. Therein it has been observed : "An association of person to have locus standi as a consumer, it is necessary that all the individuals persons must be consumers under Section 2(i)(d) of the Act, that they must have purchased any goods or hired a service for consideration, they must have purchased the same goods or hired the same service from the same party, and more or less over the same period in short they should have a common cause of action.

APPLYING this standard rent of the view that in absence of disclosure of specific cause of action cannot be said that they have a common cause of action. In this respect decision of National Commission reported in 1991 (1) CPR 184 Mumbai Grahak Panchayat v. M/s. Lohia Machines Ltd. requires consideration. In this decision a recognised consumer association filed a complaint in the National Commission against one manufacturer of two wheeler scooter stating that the manufacturer is not refunding the advances inspite of cancellation of orders even after long days ranging upto three years despite due intimation of cancellation. The said complaint was entertained and direction was issued to Opposite Party. In the said case allegation was in respect of one Opposite Party and subject-matter was also one i.e. failure to refund even after intimation of cancellation.

IF in the present case, though we do not approve the nature of business carried on by brick manufacturers as disclosed in complaint and though there is no justification for price rise or not following the standard norms for manufacturing bricks and while recommending that brick manufacturing should get the bricks test checked before fixing the price and to have costing for the price not taking advantage of demand and supply theory for enriching themselves or to distribute the loss to the consumers to be identified, we are not able to entertain this complaint on account of absence of details. Complaint relating to compensation is not entertainable. Prayer for appointment of a Commission is not within the scope of relief under Section 14(1) of the Act. Redressal Agencies established under the Act being Tribunals cannot grant relief which are not ancillary to the permissible reliefs they are authorised to grant. In result, complaint being in competent is dismissed. Complaint dismissed.