Back
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
Hon’ble Thiru Justice A. Raman, President &
Tmt. R. Vanaroja, Member
SAFIRE LITHO GRAPHICS & ANR.—Appellants
versus
S. SUBBIAH —Respondent
A.P. No. 684 of 2000—Decided on 4.12.2003
Important Points
Subject
Consumer Protection - Supply of Goods and Services
Act Referred
Headnote
Consumer Protection Act - Printing and Supply of Posters - The court held that the transaction between the parties was a matter of contract and not deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant ordered printing and supply of posters from the opposite party. The opposite party failed to fulfill the obligation and supplied only a portion of the posters, claiming a balance due from the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transaction between the parties was a matter of contract and not deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act. The lower forum's decision was overturned, and the appeal was allowed with costs.
Issues: Whether the transaction constituted deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act or was a matter of contract between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the transaction between the parties, involving regular orders and outstanding balances, was a matter of contract and not deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, setting aside the lower forum's decision, and costs were awarded to the appellants.
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants :Mr. M. Ashok Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: In person.
Thiru Justice A. Raman, President—The opposite parties are the appellants. The complainant is the respondent. The complainant placed an order with the opposite party for the printing and supply of posters.
2. The complainant’s case is thus : He placed an order and sent a sum of Rs. 3,720/- requesting the opposite parties to print posters for the films which were intended to be exhibited. But the opposite parties failed to fulfil his obligation and supplied only posters to the tune of Rs. 270/- and informed the complainant that there was a balance of Rs. 1,700/- and, therefore, there is deficiency in service and hence the opposite parties are liable to make good the loss sustained by the complainant on account of the deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties.
3. In the letter dated 27.11.1999, which has been marked as Ex. B2, the opposite parties have stated that they had supplied posters to the value of Rs. 2,000/- through Azhagarsamy Lorry Transports and a sum of Rs. 2,700/- is already due from the complainant and deducting a sum of Rs. 1,450/-, still there will be a sum of Rs. 1,250/- due to the opposite parties and they have required the complainant to pay the said amount. These facts are also mentioned in the complaint by the complainant. Therefore, a contract is revealed from this communication as well as from the pleadings thereof. There have been transactions between the two parties whereby regularly the complainant has been placing orders with the opposite parties and there has been an outstanding by one party to other from such transactions. Therefore, the transaction which gives rise to the cause of action here, appears to be one arising out a contract between the parties and in such circumstances, we are of the view that it cannot be brought under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.
4. Therefore, in such circumstances, it is not a case where inference of deficiency in service can be made since it is purely a matter of contract between the parties, who have been having running account in respect of these transactions. This, the lower Forum omitted to take into consideration and it has held that the said act amounts to deficiency in service. For the above reason, we are inclined to accept the contention of learned Counsel for the appellant and have no alternative but to upset the verdict given by the lower Forum. Consequently, this appeal is allowed setting aside the order passed by the lower Forum, Srivilliputhur with costs of Rs. 250/-.
Appeal allowed.
