Piramal Enterprises Limited vs Sukhdev Mustafi

THE Petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 being aggrieved by the order dated 13.12.2013, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, ''State Commission''), whereby the State Commission was pleased to uphold the order dated 30.8.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short, ''District Forum''). The Complainant/Respondent -1 Mr. Sukhdev Mustafi, a self -employed, started a dealership for his own livelihood with name of "Medico Distributor". He is a dealer of several renowned pharmaceuticals including Nicholas Piramal India Ltd., the OP -1. The OP -2 is the clearing and forwarding agent of OP -1, within the territory of the West Bengal and OP -3 is the Customer Service Manager who is engaged to deal with the customer i.e. the Distributors, within the territory of West Bengal. On 23.8.2005, complainant sent a Demand Draft for a sum of Rs. 1,90,263 in favor of the OP -1, for the purpose of supply of stock of medicine. It was sent through the Customer Service Manager (OP -3). Due to some business problems, on very next day, i.e. on 24.8.2005, the complainant issued a letter to the OP -3, and requested to stop the consignment. Thereafter, around 13.3.2007 the complainant requested the Manager of OP -2 to supply the statement of account for the accounting year 2005 to 2006 and 2006 to 2007. There was no response, complainant served registered notices on OP -1 on 22.3.2007 and 5.5.2007 to provide him the account statement and also to refund the amount of Rs. 1,90,263. Thereafter, the OP -1 through OP -3, started threatening the complainant, with dire consequences, over telephone, Hence, alleging deficiency in service for not supplying the statement of account and intentionally avoiding the refund of amount of Rs. 1,90,263, the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum.

THE District Forum allowed the complaint, and holding the OPs liable, jointly and severally, except OP -4, and directed them to pay Rs. 1,90,263 along with interest @9% p.a. till the payment of its realization, Rs. 15,000 towards mental agony and litigation cost of Rs. 5,000. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, the OP -1 filed First Appeal No. 860 of 2012 and First Appeal 674 of 2012 was filed by the Complainant praying for modification of the impugned order so as to include OP -4 Partha Mustafi in the decree before the State Commission.

THE State Commission dismissed both the appeals.

AGAINST the impugned order of State Commission, the Petitioner/OP -1 filed this revision petition. We have heard the Counsel for the petitioner/OP at admission stage. He has submitted that, on 28.9.2005 the Petitioner/OP -1 made payment of Rs. 1,90,263 by a cheque drawn on HDFC Bank, in favour the firm "Medico Distributor" which was duly enchased on or around 2.3.2006. He further argued that the Complaint is not maintainable, as per Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, and that the complainant is not a Consumer as the goods purchased by the complainant were for commercial purpose, not for his consumption.

WE have perused the evidence on record which reveals that, in the year 1980, ''the Complainant, with his brother, Mr. Gopal Mustafi, started a partnership firm of medicine distributorship. In the year 2001, the said partnership was dissolved by executing one registered deed of dissolution of partnership and thereafter the said business was run as proprietorship business. The complainant obtained trade licence from the office of the Ranaghat Municipality as proprietor of Medico Distributor and obtained Drug Licence and wholesale licence from the concerned Drug Control authority. The State Commission has made the following observations: "We have heard the submission made by both sides and perused the papers on record. Admittedly, OP -1 had issued a Demand Draft amounting to Rs. 1,90,263 in favour of ''Medico Distributor''. It is also an admitted fact that the OP -4 had opened a new account in his own name and he encashed the amount by putting his signature as the proprietor of ''Medico Distributor''. The Complainant has filed the trade licence and drug licence standing in his name which indicate the bona fide of his claim. In the cause title of the petition of the complaint, the Complainant has been described as the proprietor of ''Medico Distributor''."

WE are surprised to note that, the Petitioner/OP -1 did not produce any cogent evidence on record showing the receipt of cheque by the Complainant. Even otherwise, OP -1 has not produced any document or bank account statement, to prove that the complainant has deposited the HDFC cheque for Rs. 1,90,263 which was issued by OP -1. The observations made by State Commission clearly show that the cheque was deposited by Partha Mustafi, the OP -4, in his account in Allahabad Bank (OP -5). It was a blatant mistake and amounts to deficiency in service by Bank/OP -5 which, negligently and arbitrarily credited the cheque in the personal account of Partha Mustafi, which was issued in the name of firm "Medico Distributor". The Partha Mustafi was neither partner nor proprietor of Medico Distributor. It appears that all OPs 1 to 5, except OP No. 4, have worked in cahoots with each other. Hence, the complainant deserves the refund of the amount of Rs. 1,90,263 with interest and compensation and costs, as directed by the District Forum. On the entirety of facts, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission. The revision petition is sans merit. Hence, dismissed.