Heard learned counsel for the parties on the point of admission.

The revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 01.06.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 158 of 2019; M/s Khushi Scrap Traders Vs. Cello Industries and another, whereby the District Forum ordered for the specific performance of the agreement dated 07.03.2019.  It was also ordered that the revisionists shall maintain regular supply of scrap to the opposite party, without any hindrance.

The revision petition has been projected mainly on the grounds that the opposite party – complainant M/s Khushi Scrap Traders is involved in commercial activities and owed a liability of Rs. 74,08,158/- towards the supplier and, as such, the District Forum had no jurisdiction to pass orders, as to the specific performance of contract.

Perused complete record of the case available before us.  M/s Khushi Scrap Traders is engaged in the business of purchasing scrap from M/s Cello Industries for the last about 10 years’.  Both the parties used to trade the scrap with each other.  Dispute arose on account of payment of money, then M/s Khushi Scrap Traders filed a consumer complaint for the specific performance of agreement dated 07.03.2019, which was notarized on 12.03.2019.

Admittedly, the consumer complaint pertains to the business dispute.  The averments set out in the consumer complaint reflect that it is a simpliciter case of specific performance of agreement.  No element of service was ever promised by the revisionists.  Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi postulated in Pankaj Jaiswal Vs. Deenbandhu Sonkar and others; 2016 (2) CPR 555 (NC), that the consumer complaint is not a substitute of suit for specific performance of agreement.  Similarly, in Rakesh Nag Vs. Kakali Manna and another; 2018 (2) CPR 170 (NC), the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, laid down that the transaction of sale simpliciter does not come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  As postulated, the complainant may avail his remedy by approaching the Civil Court for specific performance of agreement.

In the light of the aforesaid picture of law, we are convinced to hold that the Consumer Fora had no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint, as the matter is simpliciter relates to the case of specific performance of agreement and moreover, no case of deficiency in service was averred.

Accordingly, the order impugned dated 01.06.2019 passed by the District Forum deserves to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside.  The revision petition is, thus, allowed.

It is also provided that the District Forum shall provide an opportunity of hearing to both the parties on the point of maintainability of consumer complaint and decide the issue of maintainability of consumer complaint as per law.