E.J. Bellie, President

1. The opposite party Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation against which an award has been passed is the appellant.

2. The complainant was the highest bidder for lifting husk and bran from the mill premises owned by the opposite party at Ammanpettai for the period from 1.7.93 to 30.12.93. For that he deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as Earnest Money Deposit and another sum of Rs. 10,000/- as security deposit. The case of the complainant is that the period was over and therefore the said security amount shall be refunded to him, but inspite of demand the opposite party would not do so and therefore they are guilty of deficiency in service. On these grounds the complaint has been filed for an order for return of the said security amounts and also for compensation.

3. The opposite party contended that the complainant committed breach of agreement and therefore as per the terms of the agreement they were entitled to forfeit the said earnest money deposit and security deposit and therefore there is no question of deficiency in service on their part and hence the complainant is not entitled for the refund of the deposit amounts and for any compensation.

4. The District Forum on consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion that the opposite party were not entitled to forfeit the deposit amounts and they are guilty of deficiency in service. With this finding the District Forum has ordered refund of the said deposit amounts with interest thereon @ 12% p.a. and it has also ordered a cost of Rs. 500/-.

5. It is against this order the opposite party has filed the appeal. On a careful consideration of the matter we find that the complainant is not a person who is entitled to the reliefs prayed for since he is not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. Even in the complaint itself he has stated that he is a dealer in husk and bran which means he is a trader. Also in Ex. B 5 which is a letter written by the complainant to the opposite party, he has stated to the effect that he supplied the bran and husk to the factories. This also makes it clear that he is purchasing husk and selling it to the factories. He has not stated in his complaint to the effect that he was not a seller and he purchased the husk, and bran only for his own use. As a purchaser for selling he comes within the exclusive clause in Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act according to which a person who obtains goods for consideration for resale or for any

commercial purpose is not a consumer. In this view of the matter the complaint cannot be maintained. 6. Accordingly we allow the appeal; set aside the order of the District Forum and dismiss the complaint. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.