Order

This Revision Petition is directed against the order of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Imphal (for short District Forum, Imphal) dated 26.04.2018 passed in Complaint Case No. 16 of 2016 (for short the Impugned order) wherein and whereunder the Learned District Forum had ordered to strike off the Respondent No. 1 from being O.P. No. 1 in the said Complaint Case No. 16 of 2016. The present Revision Petition was initially registered as First Appeal No. 2 of 2018 which was subsequently converted as Revision Petition No. 3 of 2018 vide order dated 04.06.2018 of this Commission.

2. The concise facts sufficient for deciding the present Revision Petition are that the present petitioner purchased a Paper Napkin Machine from the respondent No. 1 under the Self Employment Loan Application Scheme as advanced by the State Bank of India, Paona Bazar, Manipur. The Respondent No. 4 paid an amount of Rs. 4,30,000/- (Four lakhs thirty thousand) only by way of two demand drafts dated 28.03.2013 and 29.06.2013 respectively in favour of the respondent No. 1 with notice to deliver the equipment at the earliest to the Complainant. The name of proforma respondent No.4 was struck off from being the party in the said Consumer Complaint vide order dated 26.10.2017 of the learned District Forum, Imphal passed in Misc. Case No. 12 of 2017. The petitioner alleged that the said machine never arrived on the expected date. On 03.07.2015, the petitioner was informed by the Respondent No. 3 to collect the machine from their branch office located at Mantripukhri, Imphal East District, Manipur where he found the machine in partially damaged condition and as such the petitioner returned back without collecting the machine. The petitioner submitted a representation on 21.07.2015 to the respondent No.1 for servicing the damaged machine lying at their branch office at Mantripukhri, Manipur but with no effect. The petitioner further stated that the cause of action arose on the 3^rd day of July, 2015, when he came to know about the damaged condition of machine lying at the branch office of respondent No. 3. With the above said allegations, the petitioners brought the Consumer Complaint No.

16 of 2016 before the Ld. District Forum, Imphal.

3. Upon notice, the respondent Nos. 1, 3 and Proforma Respondent No. 4 entered appearance before the learned District Forum, Imphal. The respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 filed their respective written statements separately. The respondent No. 2 did not appear before the Ld. District Forum, Imphal and as such the case proceeded ex-parte against the Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 19.09.2017 of the Ld. District Forum, Imphal.

4. While admitting certain allegations, the respondents in their written statements denied almost all the allegations of the petitioner/complainant. The respondent No. 1 further submitted that according to the telephonic conversation with the complainant, the complainant accepted that respondent No. 2 was engaged by the petitioner himself as transporter of the said machine.

5. The respondent No. 3 stated that the said machine reached its godown on 08.10.2013 and he informed the arrival of the said machine to the petitioner. But, the complainant came only on 03.07.2015 to collect the machine.

6. Upon pleadings of the parties, the learned District Forum, Imphal on 14.12.2017 framed the following issues.

“ISSUES”

1. Whether there is a cause of action for filing of this Complaint for the alleged commission of deficiency in service by the Respondents or not?

2. Whether the Respondent No.1 has been involved in the alleged charge of transporting the said Paper Napkin Making Machine by receiving Rs.8000 transportation charge as alleged by the Complainant or not?

3. Whether the Respondent No.1 has got the responsibility for transporting the said Machine in question after completion of the sale transaction by engaging the Respondent No.2 which was proceeded ex-parte or not?

4. Whether the Respondent No.3 has i