Sri Kishore Kumar Berlia,  

son of late N.C. Agarwal,

proprietor of  Metropolitan Steel Traders

of 250/A/32, G.T. Road, Liluah, P.S. Belur,

 District – Howrah,

PIN – 711204.------------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.         M/s. Eastern Coal Field Ltd.,

a  subsidiary of Coal India Ltd., Sanotasia,

P.O. Dishergarh, District – Burdwan,

West Bengal, PIN – 713 333. 

2.         Chairman cum Managing Director,

of M/S.  Eastern Coal Field Ltd.,

a subsidiary of  Coal India Ltd., Sanotasia,

P.O. Dishergarh, District – Burdwan,

West Bengal,

PIN – 713 333.

3.         Chairman of  Coal India Ltd.,

of 10, N.S.  Road,

Kolkata – 700 001.-------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P   R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.      The complainant M/S. Metropolitan Steel Traders, represented by its proprietor,

Kishore Kumar Berlia   by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended upto date ) has prayed for a direction  upon the O.Ps. to deposit T.C.S./ VAT collected amount  to  the concerned department viz.-viz. issuance tax invoices in favour of the complainant along with costs, compensation and other reliefs.

2.      The brief facts of the case is that the complainant is dealing with iron and scrap

iron materials against participating in e-auction purchase and attending auction of various Government departments etc. to purchase materials for which he purchased M.S. Scrap materials against e-auction with the O.Ps. and paid the necessary charge amount as a highest bidder including depositing TCS and VAT as per norms through HDFC Bank by two demand drafts. The O.P. no. 1 after receiving the said amount confirmed the purchase order together with delivery advice. But as it is stated on record by the complainant that the O.Ps. namely O.P. nos. 1 & 2 did not deposit the VAT and  TCS as deducted, to the competent department for which he ( complainant ) has to pay further  the said amount if he is not favoured from the O.Ps. to issue tax invoice/ TCS. Moreover, the O.Ps. did not care to take any positive action and finally finding no other alternative the petitioner filed the instant case as he suffered harassment, mental agony and prayed relief and compensation from the Forum in connection with the complaint petition.  

3.      Notices were served. O.Ps. appeared and filed written version. Accordingly the case was heard on contest.

4.   Upon pleadings of both parties three  points arose for determination :

            i)          Whether the complainant is a consumer under  C.P. Act, 1986  ?

ii)         Whether the O.Ps. were negligent in activities, resultant deficiency in service by not taking due care for providing necessary paper to the complainant  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief and compensation as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.      All  the points are taken up together for consideration. On proper scanning of

the argument as advanced by the agent of both parties and also reviewing the material documents as filed by the parties, we have traced  some  discrepancies which are to be decided in this case to arrive at just conclusion. On merit it has been pleaded that the complainant is running a business under the name and style of Metropolitan Steel  Traders and engaged with purchase iron and iron scrap materials through e-auction as per record with the O.Ps. ( herein M/S  Eastern Coal  Field Ltd. ). From the available record, it is revealed that the complainant purchased scrap iron materials from the O.Ps. at the cost of Rs. 18,01,804/- after paying income tax and VAT as per norms.

6.      We have heard the ld. Counsels for the complainant and the O.Ps. From the

records it is crystal clear that the complainant is running a trading business associated with purchasing scrap iron materials through  e-auction by bidding with  other organization as per record and the complainant availed itself of the service of the O.P. relating to such purchase through e-auction of different consignment with various organization and the complainant has been earning profit out of such business. As per the definition of ‘Consumer’ in  C.P. Act, 1986  ( as amended upto date ) any service which is availed of by a complainant for earning profit or for commercial purpose, such complainant cannot be treated as consumer. Here in this case complainant availed itself of the service of the O.Ps. to earn profit.

Accordingly the instant case is not maintainable under the  C.P. Act, 1986 for

which we are not in a position to award any relief.

All  the points are accordingly disposed of as the last points does not warrant any

discussion since it is hit by the definition of the consumer.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 194   of 2013  ( HDF 194   of 2013  )  be  dismissed  on contest without  costs against o.ps.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (   P. K. Chatterjee )                                                          

  Member,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.