AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS appeal filed by the Opp. Party before the Commission arises out of the decision dated October 19, 1991 rendered by the District Forum in Complaint No. 31 of 1991, whereby the Opp. Parties weredirected to refund the security amount of Rs. 30,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 1.4.1986 till realisation and to pay Rs. 110/- as litigation expenses.
THE facts stated in the complaint are that the complainant submitted a tender to the Opp. Parties for milling paddy for the year 1987-88 and the same was accepted by them and on the direction given by the Opp. Parties, he deposited the security amount of Rs. 30,000/ - with them. THE complainant''s case was that his bills were cleared by the Opp. Parties but the security amount deposited by him was illegally retained by them. On notice being issued, the Opp. Parties stoutly resisted the complaint. It was pleaded that the complainant had supplied sub-standard rice to them in violation of the terms and conditions of the contract and the amount of security was withheld for that reason. THE District Forum, however, awarded the relief claimed by the complainant as indicated at the outset. We are unable to understand how this complaint is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the ''Act''). Shri Sunil Chadha, learned Counsel for the Opp. Parties has contended that by reason of acceptance of the complainant''s tender, the contract had been concluded under which there were mutual obligations on the part of both the parties to render service to one and another and that hence the complainant must be regarded as consumer, who had hired services. We are unable to find any modicum of merit in this submission It was pure and simple contract for milling paddy between the parties. The acceptance of tender undoubtedly creates a contractual relationship but the contractor, who has undertaken to perform certain work cannot by any stretch of reasoning be regarded as a person who has entered into an arrangement of hiring of service with the other party merely on the ground that under the contract, there is an obligation on the part of the said party to do certain thing and also to ultimately pay the charges found due for the execution of the work. The complaint of the complainant is in the nature of money claim for which he is at liberty to file a money suit for realisation of his claim in a appropriate Civil Court adducing proper evidence in support of his claim.
In view of the foregoing reason, we allow the appeal with no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. ______________