Back
CHHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
R.S. Sharma, President and Shri D.K. Poddar, Member
SETHIA TRANSPORT COMPANY - Appellant
Versus
JAICHAND JAIN - Respondent
Appeal No. FA/2017/628
Decided on : 04-12-2017
Amendment - Consumer Protection Act - Order 6, Rule 17 CPC - Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a consumer complaint seeking reliefs under the Consumer Protection Act against the appellant. The appellant raised objections regarding territorial jurisdiction and the respondent's status as a 'consumer'. The respondent filed an application for amendment under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC, which was allowed by the District Forum.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's belated application for amendment to bring himself under the definition of 'consumer' was not maintainable. The court held that the amendment sought would change the nature of the case and cause prejudice to the appellant. The impugned order allowing the amendment was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Issues: Territorial jurisdiction, status as a 'consumer', maintainability of amendment application
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of due diligence in seeking amendments after the commencement of trial. It held that the amendment should not be allowed if it changes the nature of the case and causes prejudice to the other party. The court referred to Order 6, Rule 17 CPC and relevant case law to support its decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order allowing the amendment was set aside. The application for amendment under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC filed by the respondent was rejected.
ORDER
R.S. Sharma, President - This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.06.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No. C.C./2016/699. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has allowed the application filed by the respondent (complainant) under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC.
2. The respondent (complainant) has filed consumer complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the appellant (O.P.) Sethia Transport Company before the District Forum seeking reliefs i.e. to direct the appellant (O.P.) to pay cost of Arhar (a type of pulse) Rs. 16,15,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a., Rs. 3,50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs. 20,000/- towards cost of litigation.
3. The appellant (O.P.) appeared before the District Forum and filed his written statement in the form of affidavit. The appellant (O.P.) raised preliminary objection that the District Forum, Durg (C.G.) has no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance in the matter and the respondent (complainant) had not complied with the provisions of The Carriers Act. The transaction between the parties is commercial transaction and the respondent (complainant) is not "consumer".
4. In the title of the complaint, the particulars of the respondent (complainant) is mentioned as Jaichand Jain, Proprietor-Navkar Galla (Grainery Shop), Resident of Village Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.). Looking to the title of the complaint, it appears that the respondent (complainant) purchased the Arhar (a type of pulse) for his galla (grainery shop). Originally, the respondent (complainant) has not pleaded in the complaint that he is running the galla (grainery shop) for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. The appellant (O.P.) raised objection that the respondent (complainant) purchased the above Arhar (a type of pulse) for commercial purpose. The respondent (complainant) did not file any application for amendment earlier.
5. On 06.05.2017, the final arguments heard by the District Forum and the case was fixed for order on 19.05.2017. On 19.05.2017, the order was not passed by the District Forum and the case was adjourned on the request of the respondent (complainant) for filing written arguments and for producing citations, whereas it is the duty of the District Forum to pass the order on 19.05.2017, the date on which the case was fixed for order, but learned District Forum adjourned the case for filing written arguments and for producing citations and the case was fixed for the same on 13.06.2017. On 13.06.2017, the respondent (complainant) filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC for amendment in the complaint, which was allowed by the District Forum on 30.06.2017. Being aggrieved with the said order, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant (O.P.).
6. In the instant appeal, notice was sent to the respondent (complainant) by registered post , which was duly served on the respondent (complainant), but the respondent (complainant) did not appear before this Commission) and therefore, the arguments of the counsel for the appellant (O.P.) heard.
7. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (O.P.) has argued that final arguments heard on 06.05.2017 and the case was fixed for order on 19.05.2017, but on 19.05.2017, the learned District Forum without pronouncing order, adjourned the case on the request of the respondent (complainant) for filing writing arguments and for producing judgment. When in the case final arguments were heard and case was fixed for order, it is the duty of the District Forum to pronounce the order on the fixed date, but learned District Forum has afforded opportunity to the respondent (complainant) to file written arguments and to produce citations, then the respondent (complainant) filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC for amendment in the complaint, whereas the appellant (O.P.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
