Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Ministry of Commerce against the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) which had upheld the claim of M/s Vinod and Company for premium under an REP licence. The respondent exporter had carried out exports from 1988 to 1993 and applied for an REP licence with a f.o.b. value of Rs 6,16,116, entitling it to a 20% premium. The scheme was discontinued, and the premium of Rs 1,23,223 was not paid. The respondent filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum, which allowed the claim. The State Commission and NCDRC upheld the order. The Supreme Court examined whether the respondent was a 'consumer' under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and whether the government rendered a 'service' under Section 2(1)(o) by providing Exim policy incentives. The Court held that the Exim policy is an incident of the fiscal policy and regulatory control over foreign trade. The provision of incentives does not constitute a service; the State is not a service provider. The respondent availed of the incentive for a commercial purpose (export business) and thus was not a consumer. The Court set aside the orders of the consumer fora and dismissed the complaint.
Headnote
A) Consumer Protection Act - Definition of Consumer - Section 2(1)(d) - Exim Policy Incentives - The respondent exporter claimed premium under REP licence issued under Exim policy 1988-1991. The Supreme Court held that the exporter is not a consumer as the government does not render any service by providing incentives under the Exim policy. The policy is an incident of fiscal policy and regulatory control over foreign trade, not a service for consideration. (Paras 1-10) B) Consumer Protection Act - Definition of Service - Section 2(1)(o) - Government Regulatory Function - The provision of incentives under the Exim policy does not constitute 'service' under the Act. The State, in exercise of its authority to regulate foreign trade, puts in place regulatory regimes; grant of incentives does not make the State a service provider. (Paras 6-10) C) Consumer Protection Act - Deficiency - Section 2(1)(g) - No Deficiency in Government Policy - Since the government does not render service in providing Exim incentives, there can be no deficiency in service. The claim for premium was not maintainable before consumer fora. (Paras 7-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a person who has made a claim under an REP licence issued under the Exim policy is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and whether providing benefits under the Exim policy constitutes a 'service' under the Act.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the District Forum, State Commission, and NCDRC, and dismissed the consumer complaint. The Court held that the respondent is not a consumer and the government does not render service under the Exim policy.
Law Points
- Consumer Protection Act
- 1986
- Section 2(1)(d) - Definition of Consumer
- Section 2(1)(o) - Definition of Service
- Exim Policy Incentives Not Service
- Government Regulatory Function Not Service
