State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Seeds Corporation Ltd. vs Shri. Dadaso Baburao Burge & Anr. on 9 July, 2012
A/03/1948
BEFORE THE
HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First Appeal
No. A/03/1948
(Arisen out
of Order Dated 28/11/2003 in Case No. 85/2001 of District Satara)
1. National Seeds Corporation Ltd.
Beej Bhavan, Gultekadi Market Yard, Pune through
Regional Manager Shri. Premchand Sonpal.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Shri. Dadaso Baburao Burge
R/at Dabewadi, Tal. Khatao, Dist. Satara
2. Proprietor, M/s. Parekh Traders
Shop No. 18, Shetkari Niwas, Market Yard, Pune
Maharashtra
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER
Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member PRESENT:
Ms.Ashwini Bhamare, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr.Pradeep Gole, Advocate for the Respondent.
O R D E R Per Shri S.R. Khanzode Honble Presiding Judicial Member:
Heard on admission of appeal.
In the instant case before the Forum, Opponent No.2 was Divisional Manager of National Seeds Corporation, Pune. The Complainant Dadaso Burge filed a consumer complaint against the dealer Parekh Traders and the Divisional Manager was Appellant Corporation. Appellant Corporation was not a party to the complaint. Since duties or the obligations of any employee of the Appellant Corporation inter alia including the Divisional Manager is as per the distribution of work which are to be defined or fixed by the Corporation itself. Any deficiency in service pertaining to said official must be assessed on the basis of those duties and obligations assigned to said official within the meaning of Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act for brevity). Obviously, therefore, considering the obligations either contractual or statutory in respect of an official i.e. divisional officer which is a separate and distinct than the organization which he represents, he is a distinct and independent juristic person within the meaning of Section 2(1)(m) of the Act. Under the circumstances, since the Consumer complaint before the Forum was decided on the basis of such consideration where the Appellant Company was not a party, per se, the Appellant Company has no locus standi to prefer this appeal.
Today, on behalf of the Appellant pursis is filed stating that even though the complaint is filed against the Divisional Officer of the Company, while executing the impugned order, the District Forum wrongly prosecuted them taking a view that the impugned order is passed against them. Such erroneous assumption cannot be a ground to file the appeal. They can very well take objection accordingly in the execution. Thus, since, Appellant has no locus standi to file this appeal, the same is not maintainable. Hence, we pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Appeal is not admitted and stands rejected accordingly.
(ii) No order as to costs.
Pronounced on 9th July, 2012.
[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode] PRESIDING MEMBER [Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member ep