AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member
The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, against the order dated 22.11.2022 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 98/2015 in which order dated 28.04.2015 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sriganganagar (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 616/2014 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the impugned order passed by the State Commission, Circuit Bench, Bikaner.
The Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as OP-1) was Respondent -1 before the State Commission and OP-1 before the District Forum and the Respondent-1 (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Appellant before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum and Respondent-2 (hereinafter also referred to as OP-2) was Respondnent-2 before the State Commission in FA/98/2015 and OP-2 before the District Forum in Complaint No. 616/2014.
Notice was issued to the Respondents on 14.03.2023. Petitioner filed Written Arguments on 03.11.2023. As Respondent-1 was absent despite service of notice and Respondent-2 refused to take notice, both the Respondents were proceeded ex-parte 07.11.2023. No reply/written synopsis was filed by the Respondents.
Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that: -
The complainant had bought clothes from Khalsa Embroidery Ludhiana for Rs. 67145/- and Rs.29550/- in total Rs.95695/-. Thereafter, by going along with Khalsa Embroidery’s personnel at the office of OP-2, booked the same for Raisinghnagar, for which they issued two bilties and settled amount of Rs.400/- as rental charges. Next day, the OP-2 had to deliver these goods to the complainant and he had to make payment of the rental amount. Next day, when after showing the receipt to the vehicle driver of OP-2, demanded the goods, the complainant was told by the driver that goods have not come. Till 12.09.2014 every day the complainant kept on demanding for his goods, but his said goods did not reach at Raisinghnagar. On 13.09.2014, Khalsa Embroidery personnel talked to OP-2, then he replied that the goods have reached at a wrong place, they are getting it returned back and send it at Raisinghnagar, but did not make delivery of the goods. On 07.10.2014, the complainant sent notice to the OPs. The complainant also met with OP-1 at Sriganganagar office on 19.10.2014 and talked with him, then he said that they are not finding his goods, at the end he said that the goods are not with them. Hence, filed complaint before the District Forum.
Vide Order dated 28.04.2015, in the CC No. 616/2014 the District Forum has dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 28.04.2015 of District Forum, Complainant/Respondent-1 herein appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 22.11.2022 in FA No. 98/2015 has allowed the Appeal and set aside the order passed by the District Forum. While allowing the Appeal filed by the complainant, the State Commission passed the following order:-
“…it is ordered that the Respondents-Opposite Parties shall jointly or severely make payment of Rs.20,000/- to the Complainant/Appellant for his goods by way of compensation and on this amount shall also pay interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the Complaint i.e. 31.10.2014 till the date of payment. In addition to it, the Respondents- Opposite Parties shall also pay Rs.10,000/- on account of mental agony and Rs.5000/- by way of Complaint’s expenses to the Appellant-Complainant.”
Petitioner have challenged the said Order dated 22.12.2022 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:
(i) The order passed by the State Commission being contrary to law and contrary to the Consumer Protection Act, same is liable to be set aside.
(ii) The State Commission failed to appreciate the fact that the receipt placed by the respondent along with the complaint has not been issued by any office of the Petitioner-1 and neither the Petitioner-1 issued any receipt of the said goods.
(iii) The State Commission failed to consider the fact that the Respondent does not even come in the ambit of the consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act as it is clearly evident from the receipt that the alleged consignment was booked with the name of one “Khalsa Embroidery” therefore the State Commission failed to consider this crucial aspect of the matter and hence the order is liable to be set aside.
(iv) The State Commission failed to adhere to the fact that it is evident from the original complaint that the entire transaction is of commercial nature therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected. The State Commission failed to appreciate the fact that the Petitioner-1 is completely unaware about the Petitioner-2 and the working of Petitioner-2. The Petitioner-1 is not having any association with Petitioner-2.
(v) The State Commission failed to appreciate the fact that there was no bus number or details mentioned in the receipt on which the respondent is making reliance.
(vi) The State Commission failed to consider the observation of District Forum in the order of the District Forum, that if the OP1 (here the Petitioner-1)was doing such business through Ludhiana Branch Office then the work place addresses mentioned in the Registration Certificate would be Sriganganagar along with Ludhiana. But due to no such mention, it is concluded that the OP-1 (Petitioner-1) is operating business in the name of Rajpreet Travels 21, A, Ravindra Path Only. Therefore, the State Commission was not justified in reversing the well-reasoned finding of the District Forum.
Heard counsel for the Petitioner. On account of absence despite service of notice, Respondents were proceeded ex-parte. Contentions of petitioners, on various issues raised in the RP, written arguments and arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.
7.1 In addition to the averments made by the Petitioner under grounds (para-6), the Petitioner contended that the State Commission failed to consider the fact that the respondent does not even come in the ambit of the consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act as it is clearly evident from the receipt that the alleged consignment was booked with the name of one “Khalsa Embroidery” therefore the State Commission failed to consider this crucial aspect of the matter and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The State Commission has not considered the observation of the District Forum in its order dated 28.04.2015.
7.2 On the other hand, complainant had contended before the State Commission that he is doing the retail business of clothes in the name and style of 'Bombay Depot' at Raisinghnagar. On 07.09.2014, after buying clothes from Khalsa Embroidery on 07.09.2014 of Rs.87145/- and Rs.29550/- in total of Rs.95695/- and after going along with Khalsa Embroidery persons at the office of Opposite Party No.2 booked the goods for Raisinghnagar, for which two bilties were issued and rental amount of Rs.400/- was fixed. The said slip has also been produced. The said slip mentions the name of Khalsa Embroidery, AC Market, Ludhiana has been mentioned as dispatcher and name of Bombay Depot mentioned as the Receiver. The said goods has been booked from Ludhiana to Raisinghnagar for which service charges of Rs.400/- is marked and the cost of item as Rs.20,000/- and number of nugs (items) is mentioned as 2.
We have carefully gone through the orders of the District Forum, State Commission, other relevant records and contentions of the Petitioner herein. Respondents were proceeded ex parte on account of their absence despite service. Respondent-2 was ex parte before the Fora below also. Complaint filed by Respondent-1 was dismissed. Appeal filed by him before the State Commission was allowed vide impugned order dated 22.11.2022. Contentions of the Respondent-1/Complainant as contained in his complaint and before the Fora below have been taken into account. The State Commission has passed a well-reasoned order duly addressing the rival contentions of the parties. Extract of relevant paras of the order of the State Commission is given below:-
“5. …………. First of all, we have to see as to whether Complainant comes within the definition of 'Consumer'. In addition to it whether the 'Beneficiary' who obtains the goods or service also comes within the definition of 'Customer.' Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Canara Bank V/s United India Insurance Co.Ltd.' Civil Appeal No.1042/2020 decided on 06.02.2020 has held the 'Beneficiary' as 'Consumer.
……. On 07.09.2014, after buying clothes from Khalsa Embroidery on 07.09.2014 of Rs.87145/- and Rs.29550/- in total of Rs.95695/- and after going along with Khalsa Embroidery persons at the office of Opposite Party No.2 booked the goods for Raisinghnagar, for which two bilties were issued and rental amount of Rs.400/- was fixed. The said slip has also been produced on file by the Complainant. In the said slip name of Khalsa Embroidery, AC Market, Ludhiana has been mentioned as dispatcher and name of Bombay Depot mentioned as the Receiver. The said goods has been booked from Ludhiana to Raisinghnagar for which service charges of Rs.400/- is marked and the cost of item as Rs.20,000/- and number of nugs (items) is mentioned as 2. In this way it is correct that there is mention about sending goods by the Khalsa Embroidery, but the receiver is the Bombay Depot, in the name of which the Complainant is doing his business at Raisinghnagar. Complainant has produced the bills dated 07.09.2014 regarding purchase of this goods. According to which Bill No.26325 is of Rs.67143/- and Bill No.26326 is of Rs.28550/-. Although in the luggage slip the cost of this goods has marked as Rs.20,000/-. In this way the said goods belongs to the Complainant and it has been booked by Opposite Party No.2 Rajpreet Travels, which has paid by him. Further, on account of booking Rs.400/- by way of service charges has also been paid by the complainant. The Complainant upon reaching the said goods at Raisinghnagar would pay the booking rental amount of Rs.400/-. Under such circumstances, the conclusion drawn by the learned District Consumer Forum to the effect that in this matter Khalsa Embroidery is a Consumer, and any Complaint ought to have filed on his behalf, is not liable to be accepted. In this way from the aforesaid discussion, it is established that the Complainant is a 'Consumer’.
……. Admittedly on dated 07.09.2014 goods which was booked was not delivered to Complainant, whereupon he has taken many rounds of Opposite Party No.1 up to dated 13.10.2014, and thereafter on 7.10.2014 sent a legal notice to the Opposite Party No.2. Further, the Complaint went to the office of Opposite Party No.1 on 19.10.2014 and met him, but his goods was not given to him, nor any amount was paid. In this way the goods which was booked by the Complainant through branch office (Opposite Party No.2), has not received to the Complainant. It is an admitted fact and in this matter the Opposite Party No.2 has neither appeared at the time of complaint nor during the course of present Appeal.
Now we have to see as to whether there is any connection between Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2? The address of Opposite Party No.1 as mentioned in the Complaint is Shop No.27, Ravindra Path, Sriganganagar (Rajasthan). Opposite Party No.1 has admitted during his Reply that his office situated at Sriganganagar, but he does not have any connection with Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite Party No.2 is not his branch office. The Complaint has also produced copy of the receipt (bilty), he has denied having issued it from his office. Further, he has also pleaded that someone else is working in this manner in his name, and he denied any responsibility in this regard.
Learned District Consumer Forum has assumed in this regard that the Registration Certification which has been produced by the Opposite Party No.1, therein his address marked as 21-A, Ravindra Path, Sriganganagar, whereas in the booking slip issued by the Opposite Party No.2 therein head office Shop No.27, Ravindra Path, Sriganganagar is written. Under this situation the Opposite Party No.2 has denied having any connection with Opposite Party No.1, and without any basis it has been accepted that any person is working by misusing the name of Rajpreet Travels at Ludhiana. Upon perusal of the Registration Certificate in this regard, then it appears that the said Certificate is of dated 19.11.2004 in which the address of the Opposite Party No.1 has marked as 21-A, Ravindra Path, Sriganganagar. But the Opposite Party No.1 has admitted that his office situated at Sriganganagar. Further, the Opposite Party No.1 has nowhere marked in his reply that his Shop No.is 21-A instead of Shop No.27. Hence, from the shop number marked in the Registration Certificate in which at present he is doing the work of travels, it is not proved, rather it appears that when the said registration certificate was obtained, at that time he was working in the shop number 21-A, whereas at present he is doing the travels work at Shop No.27, Ravindra Path, Sriganganagar, therefore, in the Vakalatnama he has marked Shop No.27.
Now, we would peruse the luggage slip (Bilty) produced on behalf of Complainant, therein the head office of Opposite Party No.2 marked as Shop No.27, Ravindra Path, Sriganganagar and branch office at Ludhiana is marked. In addition to this luggage slip, the Complainant has produced the photo copies of the goods booked by other persons at Ludhiana, which are relating to the period between the year 2014 to 2015. These are total 12 luggage slips, on all these the address of Opposite No.1 -27, Ravindra Path, Sriganganagar is marked and Branch Office at Ludhiana is marked, and the same phone numbers are marked, which are marked on the luggage slip of the Complainant. Thereby it is established that one branch office of Opposite Party No.1 is also working at Ludhiana, which is working for the benefits and interest and under his direction.
If anybody is continuously misusing the name of Opposite Party No.1 by getting the receipts printed and booking the goods, regarding which the Opposite Party No.1 is fully aware, then as to why he did not take any action in this regard, nor any clarification has been submitted on behalf of Opposite Party No.I. Hence, the conclusion drawn by the learned District Consumer Forum to the effect that there is no connection between the Opposite Party No.2 with Opposite Party No.1, from the aforesaid discussion is not liable to be accepted.
From the aforesaid discussion it is evident that on dated 07.09.2014 Opposite Party No.2 despite booking goods to be delivered at the place of Complainant, the goods could not have reached to Complainant, and upon making complaint with Opposite Party No.1, both have neither handed over the goods, nor paid cost of the same. Under such circumstances the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 by not delivering the goods after booking has committed default in service and has followed the improper trade practice, whereas the Complainant himself by going along with Khalsa Embroidery to the office of Opposite Party No.2 and booked the goods, and also produced the photo of the bus of Rajpreet Travels on file. In connection with the said bus Opposite Party No.1 proprietor Rajkumar in his affidavit has stated that the bus appearing in the photo is not a registered bus, rather on the bus Ranjpreet Travels advertisement is advertised, but the photo which has been produced on behalf of Complainant, in that nowhere advertisement is appearing. Rather over the bus 'Rajpreet' has been marked. Hence, the Complainant from the Opposite parties on account his goods amount and upon that from the date of filing the Complaint till the date of recovery of amount, is entitled to get interest @ 9% p.a. So far as the question of awarding suitable amount to the Complainant on account of his goods is concerned, although Complainant has stated the cost of the said goods as Rs.67145/- and Rs.28550/- in this way total amount of Rs.95695/-, and raised demand of awarding similar amount by way of compensation in his Complaint, regarding which bilty has been issued by Opposite Party No.2, in which the cost of goods has been marked as Rs.20,000/-. In this regard Complainant has not raised any dispute, that the Opposite Party No.2 intentionally or with any other object would have marked the cost as Rs.20,000/-. Hence, in the opinion of the Commission, the Complainant is only entitled to get the costs of Rs.20,000/- as marked in the bilty along with interest by way of compensation for the goods booked. In this way, by allowing the Appellant-Complainant's appeal, the impugned order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum Sriganganagar is liable to be set-aside.”
We are in agreement with the observations and findings of the State Commission. As has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments[Ruby (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269, Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India and Ors. (2022) SCC OnLine SC 77, Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Another Vs. H & R Johnson (India ) Limited and Ors, (2016) 8 SCC 286 and T. Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Anr. Vs. N. Madhava Rao and Ors. (2019) 4 SCC 608.] that revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission is extremely limited, it should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the provision i.e. when State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction so vested or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. It is only when such findings are found to be against any provisions of law or against the pleadings or evidence or are found to be wholly perverse, a case for interference may call for at the second appellate (revisional) jurisdiction. We find no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission, hence the same is upheld. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed.
The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.