LATA PAREEK vs S.G. POLYMERS

THIS is complainant''s appeal from District Forum''s order dated 4.6.2002 made in Complaint No. 813/98. It arises under the following circumstances.

M/s. Organic Manure and Mineral Company, Jaipur (since dissolved) was a partnership firm of Sarvashri Kailash Narain Pareek, Anshumali Choudhary and Peeyush Pareek. This firm was engaged in the business of supplying manure. In order to carry on its business it required polythene pouch of different sizes. Such pouch used to be got by the said firm from other business concern. M/s. S.G. Polymers (respondent), is a proprietorship concern of Smt. Sarita Jhunjhunwal. This firm used to print the polythene pouch as per directions of its customer regarding design and matter of print material. Smt. Lata Pareek, the complainant and appellant before us, is the mother of Shri Peeyush Pareek, who was one of the partners in M/s. Organic Manure and Mineral Company, aforementioned.

M/s. Organic Manure and Mineral Company stood dissolved w.e.f. 1.4.1996 under a deed of dissolution dated 6.8.1996. The business of the said firm was, however, taken over by Shri Peeyush Pareek, as a running concern.

IT is the case of the appellant that some-times in 1994 M/s. Organic Manure and Mineral Company had placed certain orders for getting the pouch printed for it. The respondent company was to supply such pouches in two lots. The partnership firm had business dealings with the respondent firm and as such had a mutual account between them. The case of the appellant was that although the partnership firm had received only one lot of printed pouches from the respondent firm but despite partnership firm having paid a sum of Rs. 82,000/- to them, they had not supplied the rest of printed pouches. Further case of the appellant is that after having become the sole proprietor of M/s. Organic Manure and Mineral Company w.e.f. 1.4.1996, Shri Peeyush Pareek transferred all the assets and liabilities of his proprietorship on 2.10.1996 to the appellant, who happened to be his mother. The appellant thereupon filed a complaint in the year 1998 against the respondent alleging therein that they had not supplied the second lot of the printed pouches to her and thus had committed breach of contract besides rendering deficient services to her. She claimed refund of a sum of Rs. 58,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a., a sum of Rs. 1,56,472/- on account of compensation for mental agony, Rs. 15,400/- which she spent on procuring a printing cylinder and delivery thereof to the respondent and Rs. 6,000/- as litigation charges. Apart from the disputing the version of the complainant, as stated above, the respondent objected to the maintainability of the complaint itself on the ground of absence of privity of contract between the parties and also the appellant not being a consumer as per definition of the term under Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986 (the Act). After having examined the material placed before it the D.F. dismissed the complaint on the ground that there was no privity of contract between the appellant on the one hand and the respondent on the other as the dispute related to business transactions between two business men. Further, the D.F. held that in any case the dispute between the parties involved complicated and complex questions of fact and law which could not be adjudicated upon by the D.F. in its summary jurisdiction. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties and carefully examined the impugned order as also the material available on the record. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that for all practical purposes, the appellant had entered into the shoes of her son Shri Peeyush Pareek, who had purchased M/s. Organic Manure and Mineral Company as a going concern from the retiring partners. We have no quarrel with such contention of the learned Counsel but as the facts stated above clearly go to show the transaction of getting the polythene pouches printed by M/s. Organic Manure and Mineral Company (since dissolved) through M/s. S.G. Polymers, respondent, was certainly a commercial transaction between the two business men. On the dissolution of the firm Shri Peeyush Pareek had engaged himself in carrying on the business of the dissolved firm in the very trade and business name. Thus it was a transaction from a business man to another business man and such dispute could not have been settled by the D.F. within its limited jurisdiction under the Act. Moreover, as we find from the facts stated above, since the transaction between the two firms had taken place as early as in the year 1994 and goods under the said transaction was supplied sometimes in the year 1996, the complaint was also barred by limitation.

IN view of the above the D.F. was justified in holding that the complaint involves complex and complicated questions of law and fact and as such it could not have properly been adjudicated by the D.F. in its limited jurisdiction. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed with liberty to the appellant to seek her remedy elsewhere. She may apply for benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act from the Forum wherefrom she is advised to seek her remedy. Cost on parties. Appeal dismissed.