SHRI PIPES LTD. vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Mr. Justice D.P.Wadhwa, President

APPELLANT is aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, dismissing these two complaints. The two appeals are connected. Parties are the same so far as facts, except these pertain to two different consignments. We take the facts in the case of Original Petition No. 188 of 2001. The appellant is a factory manufacturing pipes etc. in the State of Rajasthan. The appellant''s registered office is at Hamirgarh, Distt. Bhilwara, Rajasthan and it has offices in Mumbai. It manufactures pipes etc. using asbestos raw as raw material, the import of which is regulated as per Export and Import Policy of Government of India. The import of this raw material is regulated by the Mineral and Metal Trading Corporation of India (M.M.T.C.). Raw material is sold to the allottees, appellant being one of them, on C.I.F. (cost insurance and freight) basis after having obtained in advance the full price of the goods from the allottees. It is for the allottee to get the clearance of the goods after completing necessary formalities from the Customs and Mumbai Port Trust. We may also note that the goods are also insured and shipment is done by the Shipping Corporation of India, also a Government of India undertaking.

It is the case of the appellant that on 11.9.1990, M.M.T.C., allotted to him 135 sq. mts. asbestos valuing Rs. 16.75 lakhs. The goods sold were insured with M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. who had charged a sum of Rs. 8,461.20 from the appellant towards insurance premium. The goods were imported from Canada to Mumbai in 6 lots in the steamer, Jalgopal. When the complainant sought delivery of the goods from the Mumbai Port Trust authorities, it was found that the goods were short in quantity. Appellant had appointed M/s. Khimji Poonja & Co. as its Clearing Agents for completing the necessary formalities. Appellants lodged a claim with the Mumbai Port Trust and the Shipping Corporation of India through its Clearing Agents. Its Clearing Agents filed claims with M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. for a sum of Rs. 6.75 lakhs. Appellant says that in spite of the Insurance Company having appointed Surveyors to assess the loss and the Surveyors had confirmed the short availability of the goods, yet its grievance was not redressed by all the parties who have been impleaded as respondents in the complaint filed in the Rajasthan State Commission. Appellant claimed Rs. 6,75,583.34 on account of shortage of goods, Rs. 31,600/- for litigation expenses, Rs. 1 lakh as compensation for mental agony, physical discomfort and expenses incurred on postage, telephones etc. totalling over Rs. 8 lakhs. Appellant also claimed interest. Respondents on notice being issued to them raised preliminary objections to the maintainability of complaint itself, thus being the jurisdiction of the State Commission; claim being already subjudice in a suit filed by the appellant in the Mumbai High Court; non-joinder of MMTC, who sold the goods, to the appellant; there being no relationship of consumer and provider of goods/services between the appellant and the respondents.

AFTER hearing the parties, the State Commission dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant holding that the complaint filed was frivolous and vexatious. Admittedly, on the same cause of action, the State Commission held that the appellant had filed a suit in the Mumbai High Court claiming similar reliefs which suit was filed on 26.11.1992. The present complaint was filed on 13.6.1993. The only difference was that in the array of the respondents, like in the civil suit, Shipping Corporation of India was defendant No. 1 and in the complaint it is respondent No. 5. There was no explanation why the MMTC has not been impleaded. Mumbai Port Trust and the Shipping Corporation of India did not have any offices anywhere in the State of Rajasthan. No relationship of the appellant being consumer and respondents being provider of goods/services was established. We are of the opinion that the complaints were rightly dismissed by the State Commission. The appellant should not have invoked the jurisdiction of the State Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, when its offices are also located in Mumbai where, as a matter of fact, the suit has been filed by it for damages for short supply of the goods. Perhaps, the appellant found it easy to approach the State Commission because there is no Court-fee payable and the respondent would have been harassed in coming to Jaipur to defend the complaint. No reason/explanation whatsoever is forthcoming as to what was the necessity to file the complaint before the State Commission. We agree with the State Commission that the appellant filed the complaint in order to harass the respondents. There is no merit in the appeals. These are dismissed. Appeals dismissed.