National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M. Dakshinamoorthy Sole Proprietor Of ... vs Videocon International Ltd. Rep. By Its ... on 25 September, 2007
Equivalent citations: IV(2007)CPJ178(NC)
JUDGMENT
M.B. Shah, J. (President) Original petition No. 293 of 1997
1. The complainant, M.Dakshinamoorthy, sole proprietor of M/s.Vasantham Electronics & Rewinders, has filed these complaints for recovering large amount of Rs.2,55,09,600/- from M/s.Videocon International Ltd., State Bank of India, K. Jayaraj and K.Rajaguru, with compensation of Rs.5 lakhs and interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from 1.4.1996 till the date of realization.
2. It is the contention of the complainant that he was dealing in Videocon and Optonica colour and black & white televisions. It is also contended that the complainant has been doing business in supply of colour and black & white TV sets and their accessories, such as, booster, antenna etc. He has further contended that the State of Tamil Nadu launched a scheme called "The Community Viewing & Listening Scheme" in the year 1975 and decided to enlarge the scope of the said scheme by providing colour TV sets to all the rural habitations with 50 families and above and replace all black & white TV sets already in service.
3. It is contended that the complainant was authorized by M/s. Videocon International Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as M/s.Videocon) to negotiate with the State Govt. for supply of TV sets and for that purpose M/s.Videocon has written letter to the State Govt. For that purpose, M/s.Videocon International Ltd. had agreed to pay the commission of Rs.2,700/- per set towards the expenses of procuring and booking charges, transportation charges, loading and unloading charges, etc.
4. It is his contention that on the basis of the said agreement, the complainant has supplied the TV sets to the State Govt. and has transported the same at various places. Yet, M/s.Videocon, has not paid any amount to the complainant but the said amount was received by Opp. Parties No.4 and 5 and they have committed fraud with the State Bank of India by opening account in the name of the complainant's firm, namely, M/s.Vasantha Electronics & Rewinders, and have encashed the cheques issued by M/s.Videocon towards the commission.
5. As against this, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of M/s.Videocon contended that there is no agreement between the complainant and M/s.Videocon with regard to payment of commission to the complainant. Only Opp.Parties No.4 and 5 (who were the Branch Managers of Canara Bank and Indian Overseas Bank respectively) were authorized by M/s.Videocon and, for their services, the amount was paid to them.
6. The State Bank of India has contended in its written version that the Bank has opened the account after verifying the credentials of Opp.Parties No.4 and 5. On that basis, the cheques issued in favour of Opp. Parties No.4 and 5 were encashed. No doubt, the cheques were in the name of Opp. Parties No.4 and 5, namely, K.Jayaraj and K.Rajaguru, Vasantham Electronics & Rewinders, and the same were honoured accordingly and the respective amount was paid to them. It has been further stated by the State Bank of India that Opp.Parties No.4 and 5 were authorized agents of M/s.Videocon for procuring orders from the State Govt. of Tamil Nadu for supply of colour TV sets as per the Scheme of the Govt. The orders passed by the State Govt. were in the name of M/s.Videocon International Ltd. The commission was, therefore, paid by M/s.Videocon to Opp.Parties No.4 and 5. It is also pointed out that since both the drawer and the drawee held accounts with the State Bank of India, simple transfer entries were effected in favour of Opp.Parties No.4 and 5. It is also contended that M/s.Videocon, time and again, emphasized that Opp.Parties No.4 and 5 were their agents.
FINDINGS
7. Considering the facts stated above, in our view, this complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the C.P. Act), because (i) complaints can be filed by a consumer as provided under Section 2(1)(b) of the C.P. Act and (ii) a 'consumer', inter alia, is defined to mean a person who buys any goods for a consideration or hires or avails of any services for a consideration. Hence, presuming that whatever is stated by the complainant is true, he cannot be considered to be a consumer as he has not availed of any services from M/s.Videocon. On the contrary, the complainant seeks commission for the alleged services rendered by him to M/s.Videocon. That is to say, at the most, M/s.Videocon is the hirer of the service from the complainant. Therefore, the complainant can be said to be a service-provider and, hence, is not entitled to file complaint under the C.P. Act.
8. Further, there is nothing on record to establish that the complainant entered into an agreement with M/s.Videocon and that M/s.Videocon has agreed to pay any commission to the complainant. It is true that the name of the complainant's firm is mentioned but at the same time, it is specifically stated that a firm named, Vasantha Electronics and Rewinders, Madurai, owned by Opp.Parties No.4 and 5 was authorized to render service on behalf of M/s.Videocon in supplying the TV sets to the State Govt. So, for the purpose of M/s.Videocon, Opp.Parties No.4 and 5 were to render service and not the complainant.
9. In this view of the matter, this complaint is dismissed. There shall be no order as costs.
ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 25 OF 1998
10. Considering that the facts in the present complaint are also similar to the facts stated above, except that this complaint is filed against M/s.UMS Services Ltd, Coimbatore, this complaint is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
11. However, we make it clear that it would be open to the complainant to pursue an alternative remedy, if any, available under the law, and also to file an application for condonation of delay by contending that the complaints before this Commission were filed on 31.12.1997 and have been disposed of today.