Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s. 2(d), 2(g) and 2(o) – Respondent applied for the grant of an REP licence for which it was entitled to a premium on the amount of exports under the scheme – Scheme for the issuance of REP licence was discontinued – Consequently, the premium was not paid to the respondent – Additional Chief Controller of imports and exports passed an order holding in abeyance the grant of premium – Respondent filed a claim before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum – The District forum allowed the claim of the respondent – Appeal before the State Commissioner was rejected – This was confirmed in revision by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) – On appeal, held: The Exim policy is an incident of the fiscal policy of the State and of its overall control over foreign trade – As an incident of its policy, the State may provide a regime of incentives – The provision of those incentives does not render the State a service provider or the person who avails of the incentives as a potential user of any service – Thus, there was absence of jurisdiction in the District forum to entertain a complaint under the Act in regard to a claim arising out of and founded on an REP licence governed by the Exim policy – Accordingly, judgment of the NCDRC set aside. The respondent carried out exports from 1988 to 1993. The respondent applied for the grant of an REP licence in the f.o.b. value of Rs 6,16,116 for which it was entitled to a premium of 20 per cent on the amount of exports under the scheme. Since the scheme for the issuance of REP licence was discontinued, the premium of Rs. 1,23,223 was not paid. Additional Chief Controller of imports and exports passed an order holding in abeyance the grant of premium. Thereafter, respondent filed a M/S VINOD AND CO.
claim before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The District forum allowed the claim and directed payment of Rs. 1,23,223 to the respondent. The appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was rejected. This was confirmed in revision by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Hence, the present appeals.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The objects of the Exim policy are essentially to stimulate industrial growth by providing easy access to imported capital goods, raw materials and components, to substitute imports and promote self-reliance and to provide an impetus to exports by improving the quality of incentives. The Exim policy is an incident of the fiscal policy of the State and of its overall control over foreign trade. As an incident of its policy, the State may provide a regime of incentives. The provision of those incentives does not render the State a service provider or the person who avails of the incentives as a potential user of any service. The State, in exercise of its authority to utilise and collect revenue, puts in place diverse regulatory regimes under the law. The regime may provide for modalities for compliance, penalties for breach and incentives to achieve the purpose of the policy. The grant of these incentives does not constitute the State as a service provider. [Para 16] [567-C-E]
2. In Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha it was held that the Board is not a service provider and a student who takes an examination is not a consumer. By analogy, the same principle must govern the present case. For the above reasons, this Court comes to the conclusion that there was an absence of jurisdiction in the District Forum to entertain a complaint under the Act in regard to a claim arising out of and founded on an REP licence governed by the Exim policy. [Paras 19, 20] [568-F-H]
Vikram Sales Corporation & Anr v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (1996) 4 SCC 433 : [1996] 2 Suppl. SCR 204 ; Bihar School Examination Board v.
Suresh Prasad Sinha (2009) 8 SCC 483 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.