DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DUMKA

CC No.26 of 2015

  Rabindra Kumar Singh………………..…………….. Complainant

Vs

  Kanhaiya Dokania & others……………………..………OP

29.03.2016                                                  ORDER

Learned lawyer for the complainant appeared.

 Heard on the point of admission and have gone through the versions of the complaint detailed in the complaint petition.

            The first para of the complainant describes that the complainant is a registered Government Contractor. The facts discloses in the complainant is that in course of performing government contract to construct Road Works namely Buttabar to Ramkhari Road at Masaalia under Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojana (in short P.M.G.S.Y), there was requirement of 150 M.T. finished goods of chips mixed with Coal Tar. The OP no.1 being Proprietor of M/S Ganesh Ram Dokania deals in the required materials at Dumka whereas OP2 is the authorized representative and OP3 is the Manager of the said Firm. The complainant consulted the Ops for supply of the said materials i.e 150 M.T Chips mixed with Coal Tar. The price of the goods amounting to Rs. 4.5 lakh was paid through cheque No.086705 (SBI) as advance money  by the complainant which was credited to the Bank Account no.32205963199 of the OP on 28.05.2014 at A.B.I. Main Branch , Dumka as per verbal agreement to supply the said materials within 15 days. But it is said that the Ops did not supply the materials causing loss to the complainant to the tune of rupees fifty thousand. It is said that the OP s are liable for breach of contract as well as deficiency in service, mischief and unfair trade practice.

Learned lawyer for the complainant submitted that the complainant need to perform government contract works exclusively for the purpose of his livelihood by means of self employment. And on that basis he tried to impress that it comes within the exclusion clause of section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

But on perusal of the facts as a whole we do not agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the complainant as the goods (150 Metric Tonnes  chips mixed with coal Tar ) for which consideration as advance is alleged to be paid or bought is not to be used in any  manner for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. The goods said to be agreed to be

purchased is clearly in the context of construction of road and it is to be used in some making profit activity engaged on large scale. There is close direct nexus between the purpose of goods and the profit making activity. 

In our view it is a simplicitor case of breach of contract giving rise to civil suit. And thus we are of the considered view that no consumer case/dispute is made out of the facts given in the complaint petition. We  therefore dismissed the complaint in limine at the admission stage.