AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 19.11.2019 of the State Commission in appeal no. 14 of 2019 arising out of the Order dated 08.01.2019 of the District Commission in complaint no. 24 of 2015.
We have heard the learned counsel for the trader (the petitioner herein), for the complainant (the respondent herein) and for the electricity distribution corporation (the respondent no. 2 herein). We have also perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 08.01.2019 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 19.11.2019 of the State Commission and the petition.
The matter relates to a distribution-cum-APFC panel sold by the trader to the complainant.
The District Commission determined that a defective and malfunctioning panel was sold by the trader and ordered that the complainant was entitled to receive Rs.1,77,000/- from the trader with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum along with Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation for mental and other harassment and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation.
The State Commission concurred that a defective and malfunctioning panel was sold by the trader. It inter alia observed that the panel’s motor was given to the trader for repair but it did not rectify the same. It also observed that (regular) bill was not provided by the trader and only rough slips (kachi parchiyan) were given. The crux of its appraisal as contained in the penultimate paragraph of its Order is reproduced below for reference:
Complainant has purchased electricity panel on the basis of quotation so as to save electricity consumption. Opp. Party No. 1 has given quotation and has installed panel by drawing map at its own level, but above panel did not function properly. Opp. Party No. 2 realizes penalty amount in case of excessive consumption and reward is given in case of lesser consumption. Panel was malfunctioned and its motor was given to the Opp. Party to be fixed. Not only the motor was not fixed, but motor was also not deposited. Even bill against sale of panel machine was not issued to the complainant, rather rough slips were issued.
Learned counsel for the trader submits that it had not sold the panel in question to the complainant at all. The submission is that since it was not the trader concerned, no deficiency can be attributable to it.
In rebuttal learned counsel for the complainant submits that the same trader who is the petitioner herein and was the opposite party no. 1 before the District Commission and the appellant before the State Commission had in fact supplied the panel in question. The evidence on this count as available with the complainant was duly furnished before the District Commission. The District Commission examined the evidence in this regard and conclusively determined that it was the present trader who had in fact sold and installed the defective and malfunctioning panel. The State Commission did not find any infirmity in the District Commission’s Order. The submission of the complainant’s counsel is that the plea of denial taken by the trader is a bald untruth professed brazenly with audacity but which is repugnant to the evidence produced and available on record.
We find that this issue was aptly examined by the District Commission in paragraph 9 of its Order, which is reproduced below for reference:
In this regard, non-applicant number 1 has admitted issuing quotation Dated 30.12.2013 and providing entire information, but it has denied receiving amounts regarding sale of panel and payments made by the applicant on various dates as has been mentioned by the applicant, but we cannot agree to aforesaid statement and objection of the non-applicant No. 1 in any manner whatsoever. No reply was sent to the notice repudiating the facts as mentioned in registered notice Dated 21.11.2014 sent on behalf of applicant, whereas, it has been the statement of applicant right from the beginning that non-applicant No.1 has not given any bill against aforesaid transaction, in this regard, applicant has sent a registered notice Dated 21.11.2014 to the Commissioner, Sales Tax Department, Kota against the non-applicant No. 1 and notice was also sent on 28.11.2014. Though, it was not explained that any proceeding was carried out on aforesaid notices by the Sales Tax Department, but it is also apparent on the face of record that intention of the non-applicant No. 1) the beginning has been to evade revenue/tax and of adopting a conduct contrary to standard practices of the market and also to escape from its liabilities, whereas, statement of applicant appears to be completely natural and reliable and factual and legal repudiation to above statements on behalf of non-applicant No.1 is not worth accepting. Undoubtedly, non-applicant has not explained that why and under which circumstances reply to the notice of the applicant was not given, whereas, there is no reason and ground to disbelieve the statement of the applicant as regard to purchase of APFC Panel for Rs.90,000/-from the non-applicant No.1 and making complete payment to the non-applicant No. 1. Applicant has also presented delivery challan Dated 28.1.2014 issued by the non-applicant No. 1, but no such statement or explanation has been made by the non-applicant No. 1 in the reply to complaint that above delivery challan is not related to above APFC, rather, it is related to something else. No objection relating to any commercial objective was raised in the reply to complaint, therefore, even the objection raised by the non-applicant No. 1 that the objective of the applicant was to recover electricity amount from the students cannot be accepted. In this way, it is clear and verified that the applicant is the consumer of the non-applicants.
The District Commission placed reliance inter alia on the quotation issued by the trader, which was explicitly admitted to by the trader, and on the delivery challan, which was not expressly or impliedly denied. It came to the conclusion that in fact the panel in question was actually sold as well as installed by the trader who was the opposite party no. 1 before it.
The State Commission in appeal filed by the trader focused on the substance of the matter i.e. whether or not the panel was defective and malfunctioning. In its conclusion it categorically recorded that there was no error of any sort in the District Commission “accepting the complaint”.
We do not find any ground or reason to take a different view than what was formed by the District Commission on appraisal of the relevant evidence and concurred to by the State Commission in appeal. As such we dismiss outright the specious contention raised on behalf of the trader that it had not sold the panel in question.
In the wake of complete denial of sale, learned counsel for the trader makes no arguments in respect of the findings of the two fora below, that the panel in question was defective and malfunctioning.
Learned counsel for the complainant emphasizes in his arguments that these findings were arrived at by the two fora after their respective independent appraisals. The submission is that there has been no misappreciation of the evidence or misapplication of the law by the fora below and there is hardly any ground or reason to interfere in revision, the ambit of which is well defined and has its own legal confines limited largely to questions of jurisdictional deviations.
We do not notice any perversity in the Orders of the two fora below as may go to vitiate their findings. Nor do we find any jurisdictional error or material irregularity as may occasion to call for interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission. The award made by the District Commission as upheld by the State Commission appears to be just and equitable in the facts of the case.
The revision petition being bereft of merit stands dismissed as such.
The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the petition and to their learned counsel immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.