State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Senlogic Automation vs Bla Industries on 10 October, 2022
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
FA No.1059 / 2015.
M/s Senlogic Automation (P) Ltd.,
52, Pudupedu Village,
Chennai 69. .... APPELLANT.
Versus
M/s B. L. A. Industries Pvt. Ltd.,
Tehsil Gadarwara,
District Narsinghpur (M.P.). .... RESPONDENT.
As per Shri Justice Shantanu Kemkar, (oral) :
Date of ORDER Order 10.10.2022 Shri Rajeev Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Shyam Sunder Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard.
This appeal arises out of the order dated 13.8.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Narsinghpur (for short the 'District Commission') in CC No.27/2012 whereby the District Commission after proceeding ex-parte against the appellant has allowed the complaint filed by the respondent - complainant.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the service of second notice of the complaint was not effected which was ordered to be issued
- 2- when the appellant had pointed out its difficulty to understand the contents of the notice sent by the District Commission.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the District Commission has rightly presumed service of notice on the appellant as even after lapse of 30 days from the date of sending of the notice, the appellant did not appear.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has also pointed out that the complaint as filed before the District Commission was not maintainable as the transaction between the parties was purely commercial and as there was no averment in regard to the fact that the complainant is covered under the explanation of the term 'consumer' as defined in Section 2 (1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the 'Act of 1986'). Be that as it may.
5. On going through the proceedings we find that the District Commission has wrongly presumed the appellant / opposite party to be served whereas in the earlier proceedings the respondent / complainant had sought time to file the track report of service of notice on the appellant, but no such report was submitted and the presumption has been drawn by the District Commission.
- 3-
6. Having regard to the aforesaid without commenting on the other legal objection raised by the appellant we deem it proper to remand the case to the District Commission for deciding it afresh in accordance with law.
7. The parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 28.11.2022. On that date the respondent shall supply copy of the complaint with documents to the appellant / opposite party. On receipt of the same, the appellant / opposite party shall file reply of the complaint within the statutory period as provided under the Act of 1986. Thereafter, the District Commission shall proceed in the matter and decide the same in accordance with law.
8. The appeal stands disposed of.
(Justice Shantanu Kemkar) ( S. S. Bansal ) (Dr. Monika Malik)
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER