Case: Rajeev Metal Works &amp; Lors Vs. M.M.T.C

1. The appellant set up an industry at Unnao in Uttar Pradesh. He put up an application to the District Industry Centre, Unnao on 13-6-1986 for the supply of about 300 M. T. of G. P. Steel Sheets. The Government of India had constituted the respondent as statutory authority to canalise the procurement of the canalised items for imports and for onward delivery to the consumer industries. The General Manager of the District Industry Centre recommended to the respondent of the appellants requirement of 300 M. T. In furtherance thereof, on 24-8- 1987, the respondent had written a letter to the appellants that they could arrange supply of 50 M. T. and directed the appellants to open letters of credit with them and to comply with the requirements mentioned in the letter referred to therein. Relevant terms are asPlease note that margin insurance is to be arranged by us. For this purpose suppliers will send a cable advice to us immediately after the shipment. Suitable provision in this regard has been made in our purchase order4. On receipt of documents from the suppliers, our port offices will get in touch with your banker. Please note that the consignment(s) is/are to be cleared by you through customs on receipt of documents from our port office/your bankers to whom documents will be presented against Letter of Credit opened on us. In respect of LC established by you against our authority directly in favour of foreign supplier, you are advised to contact our Regional Office immediately upon receipt of documents by your banket for arranging payment of our service charges and insurance etc. and also for getting the documents endorsed in your favour5. Please note that in the event of any complaint in regard to shortage, damage and quality, you should report the matter to us immediately with all supporting documents to enable us to take up the matter with the foreign suppliers. Your claim will be settled on us by foreign suppliers and to the extent settlements are received by us. In case of complaints or short receipts and damage, necessary claim should be lodged by you with the insurance company/steamer company while taking delivery of goods at the port. Any visual defect noticed on materials other than damage in handling should be reported immediately upon receipt. All other complaints should be reported within 30 days from the date of receipt of goodsIn the meanwhile, we request you to kindly go through the purchase order and confirm per return that the same is in order.After pooling the requirements of various industries, the respondent had placed a consolidated indent with a foreign seller for the supply of the total required quantity of the canalised items, in this case G. P. Sheets. The foreign seller appears to have expressed difficulty in supplying the entire quantity due to exigencies mentioned in their reply. In the meanwhile, the appellants admittedly had opened letters of credit with the respondent for 50 M. T. of G. P. Sheets. The respondent in turn had opened letters of credit with the foreign suppliers for bulk supply and the foreign suppliers were unable to supply required quantity. Consequently, the respondent had written a letter to the appellants to receive 208 of the indented requirement but the appellants seem to have not complied with it. The respondent in the counter-affidavit filed in the Tribunal statedsupplier i. e. M/s VOEST ALPINE were not in a position to organise shipment against the subsequent LOI as there was delay in setting up of the galvanising line. Due to these circumstances, the supplier wanted to invoke the force majeure clause on the plea that conditions prevailing at their end warranted invocation of force majeure and hence inability to fulfil contractual obligations qua the respondentThe respondent keeping in mind the interest of complainant and other end users in the country persisted in their efforts to secure shipment and after great efforts succeeded in obtaining supply from M/s MONIYIN METALS on behalf of M/s VOEST ALPINE. M/s Monton Metals agreed to ship 20% of the quantity at the same price the complainants and other end users in the country were informed by the respondent that in view of theforce majeure conditions operating in the producing countries/the respondent at best could have recovered 216 guarantee money from the supplier towards non-performance of contractual obligations by the supplier. It was in these circumstances that the respondent advised all end users to make necessary financial arrangements and take delivery of 20% of the order placed on their respective behalfs. They were further advised to confirm their acceptance(s)The complainants did not reply to the correspondences of the respondent. The goods earmarked for them were allowed to be unloaded at the port as the respondents Bombay Office advised that their UC was operative. However, the document pertaining to their consignment were returned by the banker who stated that the L/C in respect of the complainants was not validThe complainant vide their telegram dated 5-12-1988 agreed to accept the goods in question without prejudice to their right to seek legal remedy by going to Court. The respondent informed them to take delivery of the goods in question by 26-12-1988. The complainants failed to respond and did not take delivery. The goods in question became liable for demurrage charges, it was in these circumstances an alternative buyer was asked to take delivery of the goods in question after paying demurrage and other charges. It was only in these circumstances that the goods in question were delivered to another end user. Annexed herewith and marked as Annexure is copy of the Telegram dated 5-12-1988.Since the respondent had not supplied the required quantity demanded by the appellants, the appellants laid the complaints before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short "the Commission") under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (for short "the Act"). The Commission in the impugned order dated 12- 11-1992 dismissed the complaint in the followingwe are clearly of the opinion that the transaction involved in this case is only one of sale of goods for commercial purpose and not an agreement for rendering any service for consideration. In these circumstances, the controversy raised in this case cannot be regarded as a consumer dispute which can appropriately be brought before this Forum. The original petition is dismissed on this limited ground. No costs.Calling it in question this appeal under Section 23 of the Act has been

Reasoning: 7. Clause (i) provides that one who buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and 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 any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose, is a consumer. The admitted case is that this does notis true as contended for the appellants that the definition requires to be interpreted broadly so as to give effect to the legislative intention envisaged under the Act. But when the legislature having defined the term consumer in broader terms, sought to exclude certain transactions from the purview of the Act what could be the meaning that would be assigned to the exclusionary clause, viz., "but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose". The intention appears to be that when the goods are exchanged between a buyer and the seller for commercial purpose or for resale, the object of the Act appears to be to exclude such commercial transactions from the purview of the Act. Instead, legislature intended to confine the redressal to the services contracted or undertaken between the seller and the consumer defined under the Act. It is seen that the appellants admittedly entered their letters of credit with the respondent. The respondent is a statutory authority to act as canalised agency on behalf of the industries to procure required goods on their behalf from the foreign seller and acts in that behalf in terms of the letter of credit and conditions enumerated thereunder. It is seen that the respondent did not undertake any direct responsibility for supply or liability for non- supply of the goods. On the other hand, the appellants had solicited to have the goods supplied to it through the respondent and opened letter of credit in favour of the respondent. After collecting requirements from various industries in the country admittedly a consolidated demand for supply of the required quantity of the G. P. Sheets was indented with foreign sellers so as to procure the required goods for onward supply to the appellant and others. The goods supplied were required for commercial purpose, i. e., for manufacture and resale as finished goods during the course of their commercial business. Under the circumstances, the appellants intended to purchase these goods for commercial purpose, namely, to manufacture the tin sheets for resale. It is true that the word resale used in the exclusionary clause of Section 2(1) (d) (i) was used in connection with the purchase of goods defined in the Sale of Goods Act for commercial purpose. The ultimate object of the supply of the goods, namely, G. P. Sheets to the appellants was manufacture of finished goods for resale. The goods were intended to be used for commercial purpose. Thus considered, we are of the opinion that the appellants are not consumers by virtue of the exclusionary clause under Section a(1) (d) (ii). Therefore, they would not come under Section 2(1) (d) (ii) of the Act. Since the object of the supply and purchase of the goods was commercial purpose, it would certainly come within the exclusionary clause of Section 2(1) (d) (ii). Otherwise, if the construction sought to be put up by Mr Sanghi is given effect to, while foreign sellers are not liable under the Act within the definition of Section 2(1) (d) (i) as they get excluded from the purview of the Act, the canalising agency would be fastened with the liability. Thereby, the definition of the word consumer under Section 2(1) (d) (ii) is not attracted8. Consequentially, clause (ii) of Section 2(1) (d) does not apply. Considered from this perspective, we are of the opinion that the appellants are not consumer under Section 2(1) (d) (ii) of the Act: Thereby the complaint would not lie under Section 21 of the Act.