ORDER
J.K. Mehra, J. (Member)
1. The Complainant, M/s. Mahalaxmi Oxygen (Pvt.) Ltd., a
Private Limited Company is engaged in the production of natural
gases. It had applied for a loan of Rs. 71 lakhs from the Gujarat State
Financial Corporation which was sanctioned by the said Corporation
and one of the conditions of the loan was that the Complainant would
be given subsidy of Rs. 20 lakhs provided the Complainant starts its
production within the stipulated time i.e. by 15th March, 1995 and the
Complainant had to apply for the subsidy prior to 15.8.1995. Knowing
the intention of the Complainant to go in for production of industrial
gases and to establish a plant at Bhavnagar for that purpose, the
Opposite Party, M/s. Titan Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. had approached the
Complainant to provide necessary assembled parts of the plant. In
response to that proposal, the Complainant entered into a contract with
the Opposite Party on 13.12.1994 for providing service regarding plant
and project on turn key basis.
2. The consideration fixed for this transaction was Rs. 42.50
lakhs and one of the terms was that 40% of the consideration amount
shall be paid in advance. According to the Complainant, the Opposite
Party supplied machinery worth Rs. 12.87 lakhs on 20.1.1995 and some
part of the machinery worth Rs. 20 lakhs on 6.3.1995 and the remaining
part of the machinery was not at all provided thereafter, though the
agreed date before which the whole of the unit was t established was
31st March, 1995.
3. The main grievance of the Complainant is that in spites of
his writing many letters and making several visits to the Opposite Party
to have the project completed and commence production before the
stipulated date prescribed by the Financial Corporation in order to avail
the subsidy, the Opposite Party did not take any steps in this direction,
and according to the Complainant he could start production only on
31.3.1995 and in the result, he could not avail the subsidy offered by the
Financial Corporation. Complaining the deficiency in service the
Complainant claimed the following reliefs against the Opposite Party:
1. Rs. 20,00,000/- Towards loss of subsidy suffered on account of
negligence on the part of the Respondent
Respondent.
2. Rs. 5,29,773/- Towards interest loss suffered by the
Complainant, i.e. the Complainant had to pay
this amount to GSFC due to non production.
3. Rs. 12,62,624/- Towards non-usage of gas cylinders due to
lacuna on the part of the Respondent Complainant
had to suffer expenses of the same.
4. Rs. 3,55,000/- Towards interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on non-
usage of cylinders.
5. Rs. 1,27,000/- Towards the cost of equipments purchased by
the Complainant which the Respondent was
under obligation to supply under the contract.
6. Rs. 10,00,0000/- compensation for mental torture and
harassment.
7. Rs. 10,000/- For correspondence, personal visits, telephone
calls etc.
8. Rs. 10,000/- Legal fees.
9. Interstrr at the rate of 18% on the above amounts.
And / or
10. Rs. 47,20,000/- market loss suffered.
We have heard the learned Counsel for the Complainant.
We have also gone through the Complaint very carefully. We are of the
opinion that it is not a fit case for us to go into the merits of the
complaint as we find that it was not a breach of contract as goods were
not being acquired by the Complainant for his own survival by way of
self-employment. The Complainant is a Company registered under the
Companies Act. So, there is no question of any individual initiating work
under the self-employment scheme. This Commission had an occasion
to deal with such a situation in the case of Jaipur Metals & Electrical
v. Lakshmi Industries, reported as II 1999 CPJ 602, wherein this
Commission, after considering all the pros and cons of the case, came
to the conclusion that in such cases the question of performance cannot
be attributed to failure/breach of contract of sale and supply of goods
and such disputes will not constitute a consumer dispute. It was for that
reason this Commission came to the conclusion that the alleged failure
of the opposite party to erect the plant cannot to deemed to be a
deficiency in service under Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986. For that reason, this complaint fails and is dismissed without
prejudice to the rights of the Complainant to approach civil court or any
other forum that he may choose.