State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Consumer Disputes Redressal ... vs Karim Khan Kalimulla Khan on 25 February, 2011
BEFORE THE HON BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Revision Petition No. RP/10/96 (Arisen out of Order Dated 16/04/2010 in Case No. 732/09 of District Dhule) 1. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA MUMBAI HAJARIMAL SOMANI MARG MUMBAI MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. KARIM KHAN KALIMULLA KHAN R/O 47 GARIB NAWAJ NAGAR NEAR BUSARA HOTEL DHULE DHULE MAHARASHTRA 2. SAI ELECTRONICS R/O RADHA KRUSHNA COMPLEX NEAR RAJAWADE BANK DHULE DHULE MAHARASHTRA 3. DISH T V INDIA LTD R/O F. C. 19 SECTOR 16 A NOIDA 201301 NOIDA U P ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase PRESIDENT Hon'ble Mrs. J.D.Yengal MEMBER PRESENT: Mr. Ganesh Shetty, Manager on behalf of Respondent No.3 ORDER
Per Justice Mr. S. B. Mhase, Honble President This is a suo-moto revision initiated by the State Commission in view of the resolution passed by the Administrative Committee of the State Commission in its meeting dtd.16/7/2010. By a letter dtd.13/5/2010, the Dhule District Consumer Advocates Association filed a complaint application against one of the members of the Dhule District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, namely Smt. Sudha Jain; and made several grievances. One of the grievances, which were made in the said complaint of the Bar Association, was in respect of decision of Consumer Complaint No.732/2009. It is alleged in the said complaint application that Dish T. V. India Ltd., who is an Opposite Party in the said complaint has already settled the consumer dispute with the Complainant. Inspite of that an order has been passed against the dealer of the Dish T. V. India Ltd. Taking cognizance of this application, papers were called and thereafter, considering the allegations and papers, suo-moto revision was registered. It is further to be noted that simultaneously the State Commission also received an application from the original Opposite Party, namely Sai Electronics; and its proprietor Mr. Meghraj Gyanchand Lundani; making allegations against the members of the District Forum. Allegations, which are made in this application, will be separately dealt with & investigated, but looking to the facts, we were of the opinion that the order requires reconsideration, and therefore, a suo-moto revision was registered and notices were issued to the parties. In this case, the original Complainant and the original Opposite Parties were served. However, as on today, only a representative, by name Mr. Ganesh Shetty, who is the Manager of original Opposite Party No.2 Dish T. V. India Ltd., is present. Dish T. V. India Ltd., is the Respondent No.3 in the present revision petition.
[2] For the sake of convenience & brevity, we are making a reference in this revision to the parties as the Complainant and the original Opposite Parties Nos.1 & 2.
[3] In this revision, we have to consider the validity of the order, which was passed by the District Forum in Consumer Complaint No.732/2009, passed on 16/04/2010. By this order, the District Forum had dismissed the complaint against the original Opposite Party No.2 Dish T.V. India Ltd. However, the District Forum directed the original Opposite Party No.1 Sai Electronics; to pay to the Complainant, an amount in sum of `2,290/-
together with interest thereon @ 9% p.a., as from 28/07/2009 towards price of Dish T. V. and Set Top Box. It was directed that the amount shall be paid within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. The District Forum further directed the original Opposite Party No.1 Sai Electronics; to pay to the Complainant, an amount in sum of `1,000/-, by way of compensation towards mental harassment and `500/-
towards costs to be paid within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.
[4]Admitted facts are as under:-
That the original Opposite Party No.1 Sai Electronics; is a dealer of the original Opposite Party No.2 Dish T.V. India Ltd., at Dhule. Dish T.V. India Ltd., is providing Direct To Home (DTH) service and the Opposite Party No.1 is a dealer of the said party. The Complainant had taken a Dish T. V. connection on 20/7/2009 and thereby, the Opposite Party No.1 had given a Set Top Box and a platinum package subscription i.e. three months free service to be provided. An amount of `2,290/-
was taken by the Opposite Parties. There was a warranty for a period of 12 months in respect of Set Top Box & Viewing Card and warranty for a period of 60 days for installation. Grievance of the Complainant was that Set Top Box was not properly working, and therefore, it was returned to the Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Party No.1, in turn, had given the Set Top Box to Shrinath Financial Services. Since, the Set Top Box was not returned and services of the DTH were not restored, a consumer complaint was filed. It is to be noted that the Opposite Party No.1 is a dealer, and therefore, main service provider was/ is Dish T. V. India Ltd. There was a settlement between the Dish T. V. India Ltd., and the Complainant. That settlement is on the record. Under the said settlement, Dish T. V. India Ltd., has given a new Set Top Box to the Complainant in replacement to the existing Set Top Box and also, given a connection for a period of six months free with old subscription under platinum package Viewing Card. Said settlement was accepted by the Complainant. Thus, what is to be noted that the Set Top Box, which was returned by the Complainant to the original Opposite Party No.1 was substituted and replaced by the principal service provider, Dish T.V. India Ltd. Not only that but earlier connection was free for a period of three months. As against that, it was given free for a period of six months, and therefore, not only the grievance of the Complainant was solved but, in addition to that, further facility of providing free service extra for a period of three months was also given by the Dish T.V. India Ltd. The liability of the Opposite Party No.1 Sai Electronics; is a vicarious liability because the Opposite Party No.1 was acting as an agent & dealer of the Opposite Party No.2 Dish T.V. India Ltd. Therefore, when the case was settled between the Complainant and the Opposite Party No.2 Dish T.V. India Ltd., no cause of action survived as against the Opposite Party No.1 Sai Electronics. However, interestingly and very absurdly, a view has been taken by the District Forum that even though the matter has been settled as against the Opposite Party No.2, it was not settled as against the Opposite Party No.1, and therefore, the District Forum proceeded to pass an order as stated above. Elementary principles of settlement & liability and principles of vicarious liability are not understood and not followed by the District Forum. It is to be noted that this order has been passed by Adv. Smt. Sudha Jain, who happens to be a member of the said District Forum. The order is equally signed by Mr. D. D. Madke, President. Both of them were advocates, and therefore, they should have known principles of vicarious liability. For the best reasons known to them, both of them have failed to apply law properly. We find that order, which has been passed by the District Forum, Dhule; is absolutely absurd illegal & bad in law. It is not sustainable in law, and therefore, suo moto Revision Petition is hereby allowed and the order dtd.16/04/2010 passed in Consumer Complaint No.732/2009 is quashed & set aside. It is made clear that in respect of other allegations made in the complaints lodged by Dhule District Consumer Advocates Association and Mr. Meghraj Gyanchand Lundani, Proprietor of Sai Electronics; will be considered and investigated on administrative side.
Pronounced & Dictated on 25/Feb/2011 [Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase] PRESIDENT [Hon'ble Mrs. J.D.Yengal] MEMBER kvs