IMPORTANT POINT
State Commission – The appellant is a duly constituted legal entity and is not an individual consumer which had contested the matter for nearly 8 years before the State Commission.

ORDER

Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member—After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the present first appeal was reserved for orders on the issue of maintainability under Section 24 A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on 23.01.2024.

2. The appeal under Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is directed against the impugned order dated 07.06.2022 passed by the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Complaint no. 4 of 2014 whereby the State Commission is stated to have erroneously accepted the complaint of the respondent and directed the appellant to return the Engine no.24405 to the respondents along with a sum of Rs.27,85,093 at 7.5% interest per annum. The State Commission is stated to have arrived at its conclusion perversely without considering the commercial consideration in the Aviation Industry in addition to not considering all the documents on record and was liable to be set aside. The State Commission has been stated to have wrongly assumed that the respondent was a ‘Consumer’ as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and has wrongly held that it had territorial jurisdiction over the alleged cause of action by the respondent/ complainant. The alleged cause of action arose in Bihar where the appellant does not have any office or any professional presence. It is further stated that the certified copy of the impugned judgment was received by the Appellant on 22.07.2022 by when the time allowed for preferring a First Appeal had expired. An application for condonation of delay was filed separately along with the appeal. The reasons for condonation of delay are stated to have been beyond the control of the appellant, who had to secure various documents that were as old as 15 years in order to effectively make out his case. Delay is stated to have been further caused by several cases of Covid 19 amongst the employees of the appellants in the month of August and September and subsequently, on the ground of festive season and various holidays in the months of September and October.

3. Appellant submits that it is based in Bangalore where it does overhauling work of engines. The cause of action cannot be said to have originated in ‘part’ in Patna, Bihar solely on the ground that the short tender notification dated 05.02.2006 was issued in Patna. It was further stated that the appellant had always been ready to overhaul the engine and it was the respondents who did not respond in time despite repeated reminders by it regarding the revised price proposed after the preliminary and Final Engine Inspection Report.

4. Briefly put, the facts are that on 05.01.2006 the respondent, viz., the Civil Aviation Department, Government of Bihar had issued an Enquiry in the newspapers seeking quotations for the overhaul of Cessna 172 R Aircraft parts. The respondent also issued a Short Tender Notice dated 05.02.2006 inter alia seeking bids for the overhaul of three engines of King Air C – 90 Aircraft. Appellants offered a quotation on 27.01.2006 estimated at Rs.84,64,434/- for overhaul of engines subject to terms and conditions. The quotation dated 27.01.2006 was accepted and a work order issued on 08.07.2006 allowing the pickup of the engines and stipulating a strip examination of the engines at Appellant’s workshop to be witnessed by the Engineer of the respondents. The appellants received the three engines on 15.07.2006 and on 23.04.2007 after the requisite testing a Final Engine Inspection Report relating to Engine no.24405 was prepared and submitted to the Quality Manager of the appellant.

5. Additional overhaul cost was estimated at Rs.78,54,920/-, including spares over and above Rs.10,95,150/- which had been previously paid. Since testing of the engines had been completed and 2nd instalment of 25% was due and the respondents did not make the payments, the appellant sought release of Rs.32,85,450/- on 17.05.2007 and informed that advance payments had to be made orders