VIDARBHA BRICKS MANUFACTURER'S ASSOCIATION vs COAL INDIA LTD.

COMPLAINANT No. 1 is a registered consumer association while complainants Nos. 2 to 6 are engaged in the work of manufacture of bricks in individual/firm names and are running their respective brick kilns. Opposite Party No. 1 is Coal India Ltd., a Government of India undertaking having nationwide monopoly in coal mining and sale of mineral coal while opposite party No. 2 is a subsidiary company of opposite party No. 1. Opposite parties Nos. 3 to 5 are the officers of the said subsidiary company. According to the complainants, coal is an essential raw material in the manufacture of bricks and as such monthly coal quota is allotted by the opposite party No. 2 for use and consumption to complainants Nos. 2 to 6 for the purpose of baking of raw bricks. Complainants Nos. 2 to 6, in pursuance to their coal quota, paid full price as against the quota permits issued in their individual names, to the opposite party No. 2 by separate bank drafts. Opposite party No. 2 also issued Road Release Orders. In spite of the Road Release Orders, opposite party No. 2 did not deliver the coal due to short supply of the coal at the collieries and on the other hand issued letter dated 23-1-1992 informing the complainants Nos. 2 to 6 to take refund of the price from the opposite party No. 2. On account of the failure and negligence on the part of the opposite parties in the release of coal quantities and non-supply of the permitted coal quantity at the relevant time to the complainants No. 2 to 6, the raw bricks manufactured by them could not be baked in time which resulted in total loss of raw bricks prepared by them, as the raw bricks partly developed cracks and partly came to be damaged during rainy season. In the complaint, complainants made a total joint claims as follows: (a) Refund of price consideration paid by the complainants for release of coal orders Rs. 4,69,222-00 (b) Investment made in manufacture of raw bricks Rs. 9,27,072-00 (c) Compensation for loss of profit Rs. 2,31,768-00 (d) Interest claimed @ 18% per annum on the amounts in sub para (a) to (c) Rs. 2,19,788-00 (e) Legal notice charges Rs. 450-00 Total Rs. 18,48,300-00 The complainants also prayed for future interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the complaint on the above mentioned amount.

THE opposite parties contested the claim petition and took preliminary objections to the effect that the complainants are using coal for commercial purpose and, therefore, they do not fall within the definition of "consumer" as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) and secondly that the non-supply of goods is not a "consumer dispute" as contemplated under the said Act. Reasons were also given for the non-supply of coal, but for the purpose of this order we need not refer to them. The opposite parties have taken the objection that the present dispute is not a consumer dispute within the provisions of the Act as no goods, having any defect, have been supplied to the complainants Nos. 2 to 6. This plea has force. This Commission has repeatedly held that non-supply of goods or delay in supply of goods is not a ''defect'' in the goods in respect of which alone a grievance can be agitated before the various fora constituted under the Act.

REALISING that he is on a weak wicket, the Counsel for the complainants argued that in the present case there is ''deficiency'' in the rendering of ''service'' by the opposite parties. He drew our attention to the definition of "service" as given in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. That definition reads as follows: " "Service" means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, entertainment, amusement or the purveying a news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service." He argued that coal falls within the term "other energy" contained in the definition of "service" and as coal has not been supplied by the opposite parties in spite of receiving the full price, there is ''deficiency " in the rendering of service on their part. We fail to appreciate the above argument; coal itself is not "other energy". It can be a source of energy, if burnt. Therefore, it is futile to urge that supply of coal falls within the definition of ''service'' and the opposite parties have failed to render proper service.

IN the light of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that the present complaint has no force and is liable to be dismissed. We accordingly dismiss it with costs which we assess at Rs. 1,000/-.