RAJIV BHARGAVA vs SANJAY GOEL

RAJIV Bhargava, Managing Director of M/s P.M. Packers & Movers Pvt. Ltd. purchased some furniture including a double bed and mini rack from Goel Furniture House, hereinafter referred to as the OP, on 20.11.93 and 27.12.93 totalling Rs. 23,500/-. The furniture carried a warranty for five years. Within a period of about three months the ply used in the furniture cracked and came off from several places. The complainant sent two registered letters one after the other on 25.2.94 and 13.4.94 but failed to elicit any reply from the OP. The complainant, accordingly, filed a complaint before District Forum-II. The District Forum also sent a registered letter to the respondent who failed to enter appearance. The matter was heard ex-parte and by the impugned order dated30.1.96 the complaint was dismissed by a brief order with a finding that the furniture was purchased for office use and by a private limited company and accordingly the sale was held to be for commercial purpose and the complainant was held not to be a complainant. The complaint was dismissed as not maintainable. Aggrieved by the order the complainant has preferred this appeal.

NOTICE under registered A.D. cover was sent to the respondent. The notice has not been received back undelivered. Service is presumed. No one has apeared on behalf of the respondent. The contention of Mr. Bipin K. Dwivedi is that the furniture purchased including doublebed, mini rack etc. which were in the nature of things meant for personal use. He further contended that the complainant company itself is a small unit carried on to earn livelihood of the Managing Director. He further contended that the furniture carried a warranty of five years and that brought in an element of service. Within about three months of the purchase the furniture developed cracks and the complainant sent two registered letters. The third registered notice was sent by the District Forum and the averments of the complainants had not been controverted as the opposite party failed either to reply to the registered notices sent by the complainant or enter appearance in the District Forum to controvert the same. According to Mr. Dwivedi, therefore, it followed that the opposite party did not controvert the averments of the complainant.

After hearing Mr. Dwivedi and going through the impugned order we are of the view that the District Forum has based its decision mainly on the fact that the purchase was made by Managing Director of a private limited company. Apart from the aforesaid fact there was no other material before the District Forum as appearance has not been entered by the opposite party and no plea was, therefore, taken at any stage that the transaction was commercial in nature. The District Forum has not dealt with the other question with regard to the warranty and the condition of the furniture within about three months of its purchase. For these reasons we are unable to affirm the order. The appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is set-aside and it is directed that the District Forum shall readmit the complaint and dispose of the same according to law on the merits of the case. For the purpose the parties are directed to appear before the District Forum-II on 8th July'' 96. A copy of this order be communicated to both the sides as well as D.F.-II. Appeal allowed.