M/S. Lilac Medicare (Pvt.) Ltd vs Dr. Balbeer Chand Shorey

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner M/s. Lilac Medicare Pvt. Ltd. against the order dated 25.2.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in MA No.2496 of 2014 in First Appeal No.1566 of 2014.

Brief facts of the case are that on 31.08.2006, Genio Equipment was sold to the respondent at a price of Rs.6,59,466/-, including CST of Rs.73,274/-. On 11.10.2006, the said machine was installed at the laboratory of the respondent at Amritsar and the respondent duly signed the installation report. In March, 2007, the petitioner replaced the said machine as the respondent was reporting errors in the previous machine. The respondent was not satisfied with the functioning of the machine. On 23.08.2007, petitioner paid Rs.4,63,363/- to the respondent in full and final settlement through cheque which was duly encashed by the respondent. On 16.01.2008, the respondent filed a consumer complaint bearing No.37/2008 before the District Forum. On 09.06.2008, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar, (in short 'the District Forum') dismissed the complaint filed by the respondent holding that the respondent is not a consumer. On 28.07.2008, the respondent filed an Appeal No.789 of 2008 before the State Commission challenging the order dated 09.06.2008 of District Forum. The State Commission vide its order dated 22.3.2013 observed that the District Forum has decided the complaint without giving any opportunity to either of the party much less to the respondent to adduce evidence. The State Commission remanded the complaint to District Forum for deciding afresh after giving due opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. On 20.2.2014, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint and held that respondent is entitled to refund of the amount of Rs.2,00,703/- with interest @9% per annum. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. On 25.02.2016, the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner holding the same to be barred by limitation.

Hence the present revision petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused record. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum on the ground of limitation only. The petitioner has already refunded Rs.4,63,363 as full and final settlement with the complainant, however, later on, the respondent filed a consumer complaint. District Forum has allowed the remaining amount of Rs.2,00,703/- to be paid along with interest to the complainant. Against this order, the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of limitation. The petitioner has a strong case on merits in it's appeal and therefore, the appeal should be decided on merits. It was requested that the matter should be decided either by this Commission or the matter should be remanded to the State Commission for deciding the Appeal on merits.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent stated that the respondent had also filed an Appeal bearing No.256 of 2014 against the order of the District Forum for enhancing the compensation. The State Commission vide its order dated 10.01.2017 has allowed the Appeal partly and has increased the compensation. It was argued that as the petitioner was also a party in this appeal and he was also heard by the State Commission before passing of the order by the State Commission, the order of the State Commission has become final qua the parties. No revision has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 10.01.2017 passed by the State Commission in the appeal filed by the complainant respondent. Accordingly this order dated 10.01.2017 passed by the State Commission has become final between the parties and the revision petition filed by the petitioner has become infructuous.

Refuting the above argument of the learned counsel for the respondent, counsel for the petitioner stated that each party has a right to file appeal and appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of limitation and therefore the petitioner has every right to file the present revision petition. This revision petition is to be seen separately and independently irrespective of the order passed by the State Commission in the appeal filed by the complainant.

I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both learned Counsel for the parties and have examined the material on record. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted a copy of the order dated 10.01.2017 passed by the State Commission in First Appeal No.256 of 2014 filed by the complainant /respondent. It is seen from this order that both the parties were represented before the State Commission and both were heard. In a way, the State Commission has discussed the arguments of the petitioner and allowed the appeal of the complainant. Though the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order of dismissal of the petitioner's appeal was pending before this Commission, the State Commission meanwhile decided on merits the Appeal filed by the complainant and enhanced the compensation. This appeal was contested by the petitioner and the State Commission has passed this order after hearing both the parties. The learned Counsel for the petitioner did not dispute this order during the arguments. Hence, the veracity of the order is not in doubt. As the petitioner has not filed any revision against the order dated 10.01.2017 passed by the State Commission in First Appeal No.256 of 2017, this order has become final for the parties and will serve as res judicata until modified. In this situation, I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the revision petition has become infructuous as no contradictory orders can be passed by this Commission or by the State Commission without modifying the order dated 10.01.2017 of the State Commission.

Based on the above discussion, the revision petition is dismissed as having become infructuous in the light of the order dated 10.01.2017 passed by the State Commission in First Appeal No.256 of 2014 filed by the respondent/complainant. In any case, the petitioner has a right to challenge the order dated 10.01.2017 before the appropriate Forum.