Western Coalfields Ltd. vs JAIN COAL DEPOT

THIS appeal has been filed against the order dated 7.3.1995 passed in Case No. 117/ 93 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Guna (hereafter referred to as District Forum).

THIS appeal against order dated 7.3.1995 has been filed on 10.10.1995. Appellant has also filed an application for condonation of delay. In the application, the appellant has stated the reason for delay being various stages through which a decision to file appeal is taken. Having regard to stoppage of the system of supply of coal for reasons which need to be heard for doing justice in me matter, we take a liberal view in accepting the reason stated as sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal and condone the delay.

The complainant/respondent in this appeal is an unemployed graduate and on that ground he had applied for a permit to establish a coal depot in the Guna District, to the District Industries Centre and after completing all the formalities had procured a permit on 23.8.1991. However, when he approached Western Coalfields, Nagpur (opposite party No. 2 in the original complaint and the appellant in this Commission) the latter expressed inability to supply coal. Hence the complainant filed the complaint against the Coal Fields as well as the District Industries Centre in the District Forum on 22.6.1993 and demanded compensation for loss in business at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per year and Rs. 15,000/- for mental torture with request to order opposite party No. 2 to supply coal.

OPPOSITE party No. 1, the District Industries Centre supported the claim of the complainant but opposite party No. 2 Western Coal Fields (appellant in this Commission) however declined to supply the coal on grounds of prior commitment of the Coal Fields to supply coal to power sector. They also explained that Western Coal Fields were supplying coal for manufacture of briquetts for supply to domestic sector. There were 106 such briquetting units in the State of M.P. They requested the District Industries Centre in their letter dated 13.5.1992 to advise the complainant to take briquetts as demand for new coal depots could not be met by Western Coal Fields (appellant in this case). Inspite of this letter opposite party No. 1 continued to issue the permit and opposite party No. 2 did not supply the coal. Complainant then filed an application in the District Forum demanding compensation. The District Forum after hearing both the parties awarded compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant vide order dated 7.3.1995 in Case No. 117/93. Being aggrieved, the opposite party No. 1, appellant in this case filed an appeal in the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereafter referred to as "State Commission") on 10.10.1995. In this appeal, the appellant had averred that he was not rendering any service to the respondent as contemplated under Section 2(d)(ii)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and hence, the complaint for non-supply of coal was not maintainable in District Forum at all. He has further averred that relation between appellant and respondent cannot be termed as Service Contract. They further averred that District Forum has erred in holding that correspondence between opposite parties Nos. 1 & 2 of the original complaint caused mental worry to complainant. They prayed for setting aside the order of the District Forum.

BOTH the parties were heard on 7.1.1997 and the record of the District Forum was also perused. The points for consideration in this appeal are : (a) Whether appellant was rendering any service for a consideration paid to him ? and (b) Whether his failure to supply coal could make him liable to pay compensation for mental agony caused by loss in business ? Since both the points are interlinked, we shall discuss them together. It is clear from record that appellant have not been paid any consideration for supplying coal. Also appellant have never agreed to supply coal at any time and later on went back on their commitment. Record also reveals that the appellant informed the District Industries Centre quite early that they were not in a position to supply coal to any new shop because of their prior commitment to supply coal to power sector. They also made a weighty point that they were supplying coal to 106 centres for making briquetts and therefore, advised opposite party No. 1/respondent No. 2 to ask the new coal depot to get them for domestic use as they were environmentally friendly. Having made their point early and so forcefully the appellants are under no obligation to supply coal. We strongly feel that the opposite party No. 1 /respondent No. 2-District Industries Centre were at fault in continuing with issue of permit for coal thereby raising hopes in the mind of respondent No. 1/main complainant, and causing mental agony if at all. We, therefore, feel that entire blame has to be placed on the opposite, party No. 1/respondent No. 2. They were aware that they had no powers to compel the appellant to supply coal. Atleast, no such document has been placed before us. We, therefore, do not agree with the view taken by District Forum that non-supply of coal in the circumstances could justify complaint of mental agony. In fact, the unjustified act of respondent No. 2 in continuing to issue permits caused the whole trouble. We, therefore, do not hold appellant guilty for causing mental agony and hence, they are clearly not liable for paying any compensation. There is a lot of weight in the argument that the appellants have been dragged in this litigation quite unnecessarily. In fact, record reveals that District Industries Centre, opposite party No. 1 in original complaint tried to save their skin by blaming it on appellant. Respondent in the appeal has also used press publicity to pressurise. Such efforts have to be seriously viewed and put down heavily. In the context of discussion in preceding paragraphs the revision petition suceeds and is allowed. Order dated 7.3.1995 of District Forum is set aside. No order as to costs. Revision allowed. ____________