AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 26.3.1999 in O.P. No. 579/1997 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South).
THE appellant is the complainant while the respondents are the opposite parties. Short facts may be related in order to understand the crux of the issue arising for consideration in this action.
The complainant is running a betel nut shop in the name and style of Indian Stores at Triplicane.
THE 1st opposite party is the marketing company for Pepsi Cola bottle drink and the 2nd opposite party is its dealer. The 1st opposite party was supplying soft drink bottles to the complainant for sale on receipt of bottle crate deposit. The complainant increased his business to 15 crate for every trip in 1995. From 16.5.1995, the opposite parties refused to supply Pepsi Cola bottle drinks to the complainant. This resulted in loss of business to him. This sort of an act on the part of the opposite parties would tantamount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
IN such a backdrop and setting, the complainant knocked at the doors of the Forum below for certain reliefs as prayed for in the complaint. The 1st opposite party filed a version in pith and substance contending as below : The complainant is not a consumer within the definition of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The question of deficiency in service shall never arise for consideration. There is no contract between the complainant and the opposite parties as respects the supply of Pepsi Cola bottle drinks. Even the dispute if any between the complainant and the opposite parties is that of a civil dispute relating to the breach of contract and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court alone is capable of being invoked. The complaint as such is liable to be dismissed. The Forum below after taking into consideration the materials placed on record, recorded a finding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and consequently dismissed the complaint.
AGGRIEVED by the order as above, the complainant resorted to the present action by engaging a Counsel of his choice, namely learned Counsel M/s. R. Devaprasad. On service of process, the 1st respondent/1st opposite party entered appearance through a Counsel of its choice, namely learned Counsel M/s. A.A. Mohan. The 2nd respondent/2nd opposite party, despite service of notice, remained virtually absent without engaging a Counsel of his choice.
WHEN the matter came up for hearing before us today, learned Counsel M/s. R. Devaprasad appearing for the appellant/complainant is called absent and no representation is made on his behalf. We are however, inclined to dispose of the appeal on merits of course after hearing learned Counsel Mr. R. Satish Kumar representing learned Counsel M/s. A.A. Mohan appearing for the 1st respondent/1st opposite party and on perusal of the materials placed on record. Even at the outset, we may point out that there are absolutely no merits in this appeal. In the Pepsi Cola bottle drinks stated to have been supplied by the opposite parties to the complainant, no defect whatever had been complained of. What is complained of is that the supply of Pepsi Cola bottle drinks to the complainant by the opposite parties had all of a sudden been stopped on and from 16.5.1995. As respects the supply of Pepsi Cola bottle drinks to the complainant, no contract at all was entered into between the complainant and the opposite parties. Even assuming for arguments sake, if there was any contract between the parties with regard to the supply of Pepsi Cola bottle drink by the opposite parties to the complainant and if the opposite parties committed a breach of contract that had been entered into by them with the complainant, even then, the complainant cannot at all knock at the doors of the Forum below inasmuch as, as respects the breach of such contract, the competent Civil Court jurisdiction alone is capable of being invoked. All these aspects of the matter taken into consideration by the Forum below and the complaint as filed had been dismissed. In such circumstances, it cannot be stated that the dismissal of the complaint by the Forum below is not sustainable in law.
In fine, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. We make no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Appeal dismissed.