Jurisdiction of consumer forums upheld for deficiency in service, ruling that non-delivery of goods constitutes a consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act.

The present Appeal, under Section ­­­51(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the Appellant against the order dated ­­­­­31.10.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa (for short “the State Commission”) in Complaint No.47 of 2015 whereby the Complaint of the Respondent was allowed.

2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant, who was the Opposite Party in the complaint, has contended that the impugned order suffers with illegality as the State Commission has not exercised its jurisdiction correctly since it has nowhere discussed whether the Consumer Complaint was maintainable and it did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint and the correct forum for raising the dispute was the civil court since the dispute has arisen from the contractual relationship between the parties. It is argued that the Appellant had filed the written version but since it was filed beyond the statutory period of limitation provided under the Act, the same was not taken on record and therefore, there was no defence of the Appellant and hence, the impugned order was passed, believing the one sided testimony of the Complainant.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant at length and perused the file.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant being Director of the Company named as M/s RSB Transmission India Ltd. had ordered on 19.04.2021 one 5MT Crane for raw material handling and one 10MT Crane for liquid metal transportation with the Appellant. The case of the Complainant was that the Appellant did not supply the 5MT Crane and did not install the 10MT Crane due to which he had suffered loss and was not able to start the production unit for sophisticated cast components. He had also contended that he had paid an advance of ₹50,01,458/-in total on different dates and also paid a sum of ₹1,80,000/- towards transportation cost as well as ₹10,000/- for payment to be made to service engineers of the Appellant for supply of the Cranes. Despite repeated communications, the Appellant failed to do the needful as per the agreement. Hence, the Complaint.

5. Notice of the Complaint was duly served and the Appellant had attended the trial but did not file the written version within the time and their right to file the written version was closed. This order was not challenged by the Appellant before any appropriate forum and the said order had attained its finality. The Complainant filed his evidence by way of affidavit and other documents. Relying on the evidence of the Complainant, the State Commission made the following observations:

“5. On perusal of documents it is clear that complainant had placed one Capital Purchase Order to O.P. for supply of 05T & 10T DG EOT Crane Cabin Operated, Remote & Pendent Operated DSL System & LT Rails for value of ₹43,64,000/-. O.P. acknowledged and requested for advance payment which was made as per payment details at page 36 of complaint petition. Complainant paid ₹51,91,458/-. O.P. supplied one Crane which is valued for ₹21,82,616/-. Letter dated 18.10.2014 of complainant to O.P. reveals that complainant requested O.P. for installation of Crane. As O.P. did not respond, complainant served legal notice dated 29.06.2015 to O.P. and thereafter filed the complaint on 28.08.2015 before this Commission.

6. From the above, it is clear that there is deficiency in service on the part of O.P. for non installation of the Crane supplied and non supply of another Crane as per