State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Apcolite Trading Company (Regd.,). vs Vijayalaxmi, on 17 April, 2012
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF APRIL 2012 PRESENT THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAMANNA : PRESIDENT SMT.RAMA ANANTH : MEMBER Appeal No.105/2011 Apcolite Trading Company (Regd.,). Through its Proprietor, Manoj Talwar, A-61, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027. (By Smt/Shri. Balavinder Ralhan) Vijayalaxmi, W/o Jagdish, R/o Ranebennur-581115. (By Smt/Shri. J.M.U. Murthy) Opposite Party before the DF .Appellant/s -Versus- Complainant before the DF .Respondent/s O R D E R
HONBLE JUSTICE MR.K. RAMANNA : PRESIDENT This appeal is filed under Section 15 of the C.P Act, 1986 by the Opposite Party with a prayer to set aside the order dated 17.08.2010 passed by the DF, Haveri Urban in Complaint No.477/2010 whereby complaint filed by respondent came to be allowed directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.95,000/- with interest at 8% p.a from the date of filing the complaint till realization, it includes the compensation towards mental agony of the complainant and also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses within 30 days from the date of order. Assailing the same, appellant has come up with this appeal on various grounds.
2. The appellant also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 109 days caused in preferring this appeal supported by an affidavit of Sri. Manoj Talwar, Proprietor of the Apcolite Trading Company explaining the reasons for the delay in preferring this appeal.
3. After service of notice, the respondent appeared through counsel and resisted the appeal contending that, the order under challenge is in accordance with law and it does not require any interference from this Commission, therefore prays for dismissal of the appeal.
4. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both sides and perused the records.
5. The points that arise for our consideration in this appeal is to consider is that whether:
The appellant has shown sufficient and reasonable grounds to condone the delay of 109 days in preferring this appeal?
The District Forum is justified in allowing the complaint filed by respondent?
If so, what order?
6. Point No.1:- The appellant has filed the affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay in preferring the appeal about five days. The appellant has narrated some administrative difficulties in preferring the appeal in time. We have gone through the reasons assigned and satisfied and therefore the delay in filing the appeal is condoned by allowing I.A.No.I.
7. Point No. 2:- The case put-forth by the respondent/complainant before the DF is that, she placed an order for supply of machine and paid Rs. 50,000/- as an advance. Complainant is house wife residing at Ranebennur. The appellant/Opposite Party is a manufacturer and dealer in water proof paper plate machine and other electrical goods with its business throughout India. In September-2009, the agent of the Opposite Party propaganded water proof paper plate double die machine. Therefore, the complainant decided to purchase the said machine. The agent of the appellant told that the machine was costing Rs. 1,05,000/- and that machine would be delivered to the house and it was carrying warranty of two years. Therefore, she paid an advance of Rs. 50,000/- with an understanding that it should be refunded after the Bank loan released towards the entire cost of the machine. Accordingly, appellant sent the machine, but in the name of different dealer by name Pavan Electronics on 10.10.2009. It reached the complainant at Ranebennur on 19.10.2009 and the complainant sent another DD for Rs. 1,05,000/- on 14.10.2009 after obtaining loan from the SBI, Ranebennur.
She has received a bill for Rs. 8,500/- towards supply of machine. When contacted the appellant/Opposite Party to refund the balance but, went in vain. Appellant/Opposite Party paid Rs. 60,000/- to the complainant on 29.10.2009 towards refund of her advance money of Rs. 50,000/- and additional Rs. 10,000/- but, the Opposite Party was due additional sum of Rs. 95,000/-. It is further case that, machine worked hardly for a month and thereafter it started giving troubles, its die stopped working and it was giving electric shock when touched. The complainant requested to repair the machine or to replace it. Though promised, Opposite Party failed either to repair or to replace the machine. Legal notice did not yield. Therefore, filed a complaint.
8. No doubt that the appellant/Opposite Party appeared and filed version contending that there is no cause of action to file a complaint. The transaction took place between the parties is purely a commercial in nature and the complainant had no locus standi to file the complaint and the DF has no territorial jurisdiction since the Opposite Party is working at Delhi and that the entire transaction took place in Delhi. Narindra Talwar was not his agent but, the Manager and never visited Ranebennur. After considering the evidence, complaint came to be allowed.
9. We have gone through the reasons assigned by the DF to Point No.1 to 4. The DD was paid to the appellant at Ranebennur and the consignment was received by the respondent at Ranebennur through VRL transporter and used the machine for few days and thereafter it was started troubling. Therefore, the appellant has not produced any documents to show that the entire transaction took place at Delhi. The cause of action arose at Ranebennur within the jurisdiction of the DF, Haveri.
10. As regards the point No.2, whether the respondent / complainant is a consumer? Admittedly she is a house wife and she wanted to do business in the paper plates. As could be seen from the materials, in most of the middle class familes in order to eke out the livelihood, the house wives now a days shall come forward to earn some amount to support the family maintenance. Therefore, purchasing of the paper plate machine cannot be construed that the said machine was purchased for commercial purpose. The appellant has admitted that it has received the advance amount of Rs. 50,000/- for supply of that machine out of Rs. 1,05,000/-. In view of the fact that, the complainant has received a bill from Pavan Electronics for Rs. 8,500/-, the actual cost of the machine and the appellant without supplying the said machine has received the amount from the complainant which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. Therefore, the DF is right in allowing the complaint filed by the respondent. Accordingly, we dont notice any incorrect or perverse findings recorded by the DF in passing the impugned order. Hence, appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, we pass the following:
O R D E R Appeal is dismissed confirming the order passed by the District Forum, Haveri dated 17.08.2010 in Complaint No.477/2010. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.
The amount deposited by the appellant/Opposite Party in this appeal shall be transferred to the DF to enable the DF to pay the same to the respondent/complainant after due notice to her.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Rhr*