NISHA PRABHAKAR RANADE vs MANJUSHA ARUN ROKADE

RESPONDENT is present through his Advocate in response to our notice before admission issued on 22.4.2003 in this appeal. Learned Advocate for the respondent files his appearance.2. We are proceeding to dispose of this appeal at the stage of its admission itself on perusal of the material available before us and on hearing the learned Advocates for the parties.3. For brevitys sake appellant is referred to as O.P. and respondent as .4. O.P. is the appellant in this appeal, who has taken exception to the order dated 28.8.2002 passed by District Forum, Sangli holding the O.P. being deficient in rendering services to the complainant as also indulging in unfair trade practice and so holding, has ordered for refund of the amount which the complainant paid to the O.P. towards the price of the machine in question plus cost. Few relevant facts:

COMPLAINANT in response to the advertisement issued by and on behalf of one M/s. Prakash Traders in local newspaper Dainik Tarun Bharat paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the O.P. who was associated at the same time with the said Company by cheque for the purchase of machine being the subject matter of the dispute herein. However, despite payment of full price, O.P. did not deliver the machine and hence the complaint. It is noticed that in response to the notice issued by the District Forum, O.P. appeared and took up the stand he having been wrongly impleaded in the complaint proceedings. Inasmuch as it was asserted inter alia that one Mr. J.P. Singh Verma was the Proprietor of M/s. Prakash Traders and the machine was to be delivered to the complainant by the said Company. It is stated that said Mr. Singh Verma was sole Proprietor of M/s. Prakash Traders. O.P. tried to explain that she accepted the payment by cheque which was drawn in her favour as it was understanding between her and Mr. Singh, Proprietor of M/s. Prakash Traders and thereafter had paid the said amount to said Mr. Singh, in support, reliance was placed on some writing sought to be executed by Mr. Singh admitting receipt of sum of Rs. 25,600/- from the O.P.

It was convincingly and clearly established that the complainant had paid the amount in question to the O.P. by cheque drawin in her name i.e., in the name of the O.P. and that there was failure on the part of the O.P. to deliver the machine that it held the O.P. being deficient in rendering services to the complainant as also failure to deliver the goods and so holding, has ordered to refund the amount of Rs. 25,000/- with 12% interest and cost of Rs. 1,000/-.

ACROSS on behalf of the appellant, same plea is repeated to state that O.P. cannot be held personally liable as done by the District Forum in the matter. Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant in the terms as aforesaid do not appeal to us at all. O.P. was paid the amount in question by the complainant by bank cheque, which was drawn in the name of the O.P. and the record further shows O.P. had negotiating the said cheque for clearance by putting the same in the account and received the amount thereunder.

IF at all O.P. was not directly concerned to the delivery of the machine, then one fails to understand as to why she received the amount in question by cheque which was duly drawn in her favour that is clearly reflective upon the conduct of the O.P. If the facts as stated by and on behalf of the O.P. are to be accepted, then in our view, the same accounts indulgence of the O.P. in unfair trade practice, which is also serious deficiency within the meaning of Section 2(1)(g) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. By and large, we find the award is fair needing into interference. Appeal dismissed.