IMPORTANT POINT
A consumer complaint against a deceased individual is not maintainable, and a legal heir cannot be held liable for debts without evidence of a direct transaction or relationship with the complainant.

JUDGMENT

Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.

The Petitioner through this Writ Petition has challenged the order dated 22.06.2023 passed by the President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha, Cuttack in C.C No.24 of 2021, the same being completely without jurisdiction, illegal and unsustainable in the eye of law.

I. Factual Matrix of the Case:

2. The petitioner's deceased son being a proprietor entered into a contract to supply building materials like chips, sand & boulders and provide machineries on rent to the O.P. The O.P had made certain excess payment to a sum of Rs. 1,03,08,600/-. Hence the proprietor issued 3 nos. of postdated cheques of different amounts and different dates for repayment of the same.

3. Unfortunately, the petitioner's son/proprietor expired due to a tragic car accident. The O.P on presenting such postdated cheques before the bank, the same returned dishonored on the ground of "insufficient funds" and "other customer deceased."

4. The O.P issued notice to the present petitioner U/s 138 (b) of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 although the present petitioner is not the author of the cheque nor anywhere a signatory to the agreement or has a buyer seller relationship with the O.P. The O.P thereafter filed Complaint Case No.24/2021 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa claiming a sum of total Rs. 1,05,08,600/-

5. The said complaint petition being not maintainable before the aforesaid forum, was allowed vide order dated 22.06.2022. Hence challenging the same, this writ has been filed.

II. Petitioner's Submissions:

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner(s) earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

7. The Proforma Opposite Party No.3 since already dead, the impugned order is against a dead person. Hence, the impugned order is a nullity in the eye of law. The learned Commission completely failed to appreciate that the complaint case in absence of proper description of the Proforma Opposite Party No.3 was not at all maintainable & hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

8. The Commission miserably failed to consider the issue of maintainability as to whether the Complainant is coming within the definition of consumer and dispute presented before it qua the present petitioner was at all maintainable. The petitioner nowhere being a party to any of the alleged contract nor a signatory to the Cheque nor even any semblance with the business of the Proforma Opposite Party No.3, no liability could have been saddled with the Opposite Party No.l.

9. The Opposite Party No.l as a complainant filed C.C Case No.24 of 2021 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha, Cuttack with a prayer for payment of outstanding dues of Rs. 1,03,08,600/-and other dues. The allegation of the Complainant was that he was having some dealings with Debabrata Amarnath who is the Proprietor of Proforma Opp. Party No.3 towards purchase of Chips and Metals, for which there was transaction. It is further complained that there was over payment of Rs. 1,03,08,600/-. The Proforma Opposite Party No.3 by virtue of three Cheques had refunded the aforesaid amount. But to the misfortune the said Proforma Opposite Party No.3 died on 17.10.2020, out of unfortunate Car accident. After death of the Proforma Opposite Party No.3, the Cheques which were presented in the Bank were bounced. Subsequent thereto, the present Consumer Complaint No. 24 of 2021 was filed with the prayer as aforesaid.

10. The Commission though has specifically found that the Complainant has not filed any documents to prove the basic transaction on the issue of buyer and seller, but has held that the Complainant is entitled to claim, damages from the present petitioner, who is father of late Debebrata Amarnath. The Complainant has not filed a single piece of paper or has proved anything showing involvement of the petitioner in the alleged transaction or business.

11. The Proforma Opposite Party No.3 was not in proper