Back
2009(4) CPR 157 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI
Ashok Bhan, President and B.K. Taimni, Member
Ashok Rangnani —Petitioner
versus
Sulochana Naidu and Ors. —Respondents
Revision Petition No. 1195 of 2006
Decided on 26.10.2009
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. K. Anandani, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. R.K. Bhawnani, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
In a case of Unfair Trade Practice, where there was no material to show that dealer was in connivance with manufacturer, he could not be made liable with manufacturer.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 12 and 17—Unfair Trade Practice—Television was purchased by complainant under profit order scheme—Purchased paid Rs. 30,000/- and that amount was promised to be returned after 5 years and 11 months for which post dated cheque was issued—Cheque was dishonoured—State Commission held petitioner-dealer and manufacturer liable for Unfair Trade Practice and directed payment of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- with cost—Revision by the dealer—Cheque had been drawn by manufacturer and scheme was also advertised by manufacturer—Petitioner had neither held out the promise nor issued the cheque and no material to show that he was in connivance with manufacturer—Petitioner could not be held liable in the award. Paras 7 & 8)
Ashok Bhan, President—Ashok Rangnani, Proprietor, Sandeep Agency, who is the Dealer of Baron International Limited, who manufacturers Akai brand of televisions has filed the present Revision Petition against the Order of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’ for short) whereby and whereunder, the State Commission, after setting aside the Order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’ for short) and dismissing the Complaint, allowed the Appeal.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are:
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, legal representatives of B.I.R. Naidu, had, in his lifetime, purchased an Akai brand television under profit order scheme of Baron International Limited from local Dealer-Sandeep Agency, Raipur on 14.08.1998. As per averments made in the Complaint, the current price of the said television was Rs.23,000/- but under- the above-said scheme, if a purchaser deposited the sum of Rs.30,000/-, then, after 5 years and 11 months, the said amount of Rs.30,000/- was to be refunded to the purchaser. It was further averred in the Complaint that at the time of purchase of the television, Dealer-petitioner herein had also handed over a post-dated cheque for Rs.30,000/- drawn under the authorized signatories of Baron International Limited. B.I.R. Naidu died on 11.12.1999. Subsequently, when the complainants deposited the above-said cheque of Rs.30,000/- with their bankers, the said cheque was returned back with the report that the account of which the cheque had been drawn had been blocked. Thereupon, the complainants contacted the local Dealer and requested him to make payment of Rs.30,000/- but he refused to do so. They also made correspondences with the Director of Baron International Limited but of no avail. Legal notice was served on the petitioner but the same was not responded to. Being aggrieved, respondents filed a Complaint before the District Forum.
3. After notice, petitioner as well as Baron International Limited put in appearance. Written reply was filed only by the petitioner in which it was stated that Ashok Rangnani was not the proprietor of Sandeep Agency. It was denied that any cheque was handed over to B.I.R. Naidu. It was averred in the Written version that the petitioner has neither taken any commission nor had signed any cheque and given to B.I.R. Naidu and, hence, prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.
4. District Forum dismissed the Complaint on the ground that no scheme had been filed by either of the parties to the effect that in case a person pays Rs.30,000/- for a television instead of Rs.23,000/-, then, the amount of Rs. 30,000/- would be refunded back, as alleged in the Complaint. That there was no averment in the Complaint regarding any manufacturing defect in the goods. That the cheque had been issued by Baron International Limited. That Ashok Rangnani was not a Dealer.
6. Aggrieved against this, the respondents filed an Appeal before the State Commission along with an Application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC’ for short), to take on record copy of the advertisement got published by Baron International Limited in the newspapers and statement of accounts of B.I.R. Naidu issued by the Corporation Bank for the relevant period. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, the State Commission allowed the Application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC and took on record the documents filed by the complainants in the interest of justice.
6. The State Commission came to the conclusion that the petitioner and Baron International Limited were guilty of adopting unfair trade practices and, accordingly, allowed the Complaint and held the petitioner as well as Baron International Limited jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.I0,000/- to the complainant within 2 months fa
