AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
AFTER hearing both sides we are clearly of the view that this complaint petition has to fail on the short ground that the complaint cannot be regarded as a consumer.
THE Complainant who is engaged in the business of transportation of Liquid Petroleum Gas by road has entered into an arrangement with the Opposite Party for the design, manufacture, supply and installation (mounting) of a tank on the chassis of a truck newly purchased by him so as to equip it to operate as a Liquid Petroleum Gas road tanker. From the letter dated 25th May, 1992 written by the opposite party wherein the opposite party undertook to carryout the contract in accordance with the stipulation it is very clear that the arrangement was for the design, manufacture, inspection, testing, mounting, painting with one coat of red-oxide primer and handing over of the tanker vehicle. The contract in our opinion, was clearly one for the manufacture and supply of a tank (plus) and mounting it on the chassis of the truck belonging to the complainant. The work of installation, painting etc. agreed to be carried out were only ancillary and incidental to the arrangement for manufacture and supply of the tank and it spelt out an agreement for manufacture and supply for a price fixed. The dominant nature of the contract was in essence one of manufacture and sale of a tank. The grievance with which the complainant has come before us is that the tank manufactured and fitted on to his truck by the opposite party had developed leaks on account of some manufacturing defect. Because of this heavy leakage of gas which necessitated the suspension of the transport operations by the complainant for a considerable period of time he was put to heavy loss for which compensation is sought to be recovered in the complaint.
IN our opinion, this case is clearly governed by the principles laid down by this Commission in M/s. Star Paper Mills Ltd. v. M/s. Batlibai and Co. (Original Petition No. 15/91 decided on 8.10.1991, (1992) 1 CPJ 195 and it has to be held that the transaction was one of purchase of goods for a commercial purpose. The Complaint is not, therefore, maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. It is dismissed on the said limited ground.
IT is made clear that the dismissal of this complaint on the aforesaid ground will not operate in any manner to the prejudice of the complainant in the matter of pursuing his remedies before the Civil Court. The parties will bear their respective costs.