SHRI LAKSHMI NARAYAN RICE MILL vs FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA

THE Complainant''s claim is for Rs. 24,39,233.88 the details of which are given in para 16 of the complaint.

THE case of the Complainant is that it is a rice mill doing business in rice milling, merchandising and commission agency while the Opposite Party Corporation is involved in the activities of distribution of foodgrains including rice. The Opposite Party has depots at various places. One of the modes of distribution of rice is by calling of tenders for different lots and then after accepting the tenders of successful bidders lots of rice to successful bidders are released. The Opposite Party Corporation called for tenders in respect of 130 lots of rice lying in the various depots in Tamil Nadu region. The Complainant submitted his tender for 17 lots and it was accepted and the Complainant was asked to make a security deposit of Rs. 2,16,625.38. Instead of rendering service by way of supplying and delivering the rice of 17 lots, the Opposite Party informed the Complainant that the security deposit made by him and all the 17 lots of rice had been frozen. The Complainant filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Judicature in Madras and it was accepted on 7.7.1988. The Opposite Party filed an appeal in the High Court against the Order passed by the Single Judge. The appeal was allowed vide order dated 5.10.1990. The Complainant filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, the Supreme Court passed an order on 3rd May, 1991 directing the Opposite Party to deliver the lots of rice to the Complainant in accordance with the contract. The Complainant did receive the rice but it was found less by 5% in quantity and it had also deteriorated in quality. The Opposite Party represented that adequate quantity of rice was not available and this shortage was due to deterioration in the quality of rice. The 17 lots of rice were lying in different godowns of the Opposite Party right from August, 1987 to 27th September, 1991 i.e. for a period of more than four years for no fault of the Complainant but only due to the adamant failure on the part of the Opposite Party to render statutory service. The Complainant found that the quality of the whole quantity of rice had deteriorated to a great extent. This was wholly and fully attributable to deficiency in service committed by the Opposite Party. The complaint was opposed by the Opposite Party by filing a counter. We do not think it necessary to give here the contentions of the Opposite Party as the matter stands concluded by the order passed by the Supreme Court.

ON 3rd May, 1991 the Supreme Court passed the following order : "The petitioner will deposit the entire price of the stock of rice for which he submitted tenders including sales-tax minus the amount of security deposit which he has already made. This entire amount is to be deposited by 30th June, 1991 with the Food Corporation of India, the respondent. The Petitioner is granted three months, time i.e. upto 30th September, 1991 from 30th June, 1991, for lifting the entire stock of rice from the Food Corporation of India''s Godown. If in case the Petitioner delays for any reason whatsoever after 30th September, 1991 in lifting the entire stock of rice then the petitioner undertakes to pay the usual godown charges in respect of the stock which is kept in the godown. The Food Corporation of India, the Respondent will, however, cooperate with the petitioner in finding that there is no embargo created in any manner in lifting the said stock of rice and also in transporting the same by the petitioner. We also make it clear that the petitioner in no circumstance will raise any objection in regard to the quality of rice and lift the same as it is in the godown."

In view of the above order the Complainant cannot raise any dispute about the quality of rice supplied to him.

ABOUT the shortage in quantity of rice the Complainant filed a contempt petition against the Opposite Party before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was pleased to pass the following order on 14th July, 1992. "Learned Counsel for the petitioner says that in respect of short supply the Food Corporation of India is prepared to refund the excess of price to the petitioner. But, the petitioner says he is entitled to insist upon the supply of the corresponding quantity of rice. We think that, in the absence of any allegation that the Food Corporation of India had wilfully tampered with the physical stocks in the various lots with a view to defeating the direction of this Court the presumption is that the shortage may be attributable to natural causes such as driage etc. The offer of compensation in terms of money appears not unreasonable in the circumstances. The petition is, therefore, dismissed."

In view of the above order of the Supreme Court that the shortage can be attributable to the natural causes and driage etc. the Complainant is not at liberty now to urge that the rice delivered to him was short in quantity on account of some fault of the Opposite Party. Further, we are of the opinion that in the present case the dispute raised by the Complainant is not a consumer dispute. The Complainant had purchased the goods from the Opposite Party. ''Consumer'' of goods has been defined in Clause (d) of Section 2(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is as follows : "Consumer" means any person who "(1) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised or under the system of deferred payment when such is made with the approval of such person but does not include a person who obtains such goods or resale or for any commercial purpose."

Admittedly the Complainant had purchased huge quantity of rice. It could not be for self-consumption. It must have been purchased by him for resale. Therefore, regarding the rice purchased from the Opposite Party, the Complainant cannot be regarded as a "consumer" and therefore, he cannot claim any relief under the above Act.

IN the light of the reasons stated above, we dismiss this Original Petition with costs which are assess at Rs. 3,000/-.