Decided on December 01,2009

Krishan Singh Gurbachan Singh And Sons Appellant
RAMESH CHAND Respondents


ARUN KUMAR GOEL, J. - (1.) A perusal of the complaint No. 109/2003 shows, that it is neither happily worded, nor it discloses application of mind while drafting it. This observation we are sorry to make in the face of the fact that great emphasis was laid by Mr. Deepak Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant on the pleadings in the complaint. Whole thrust of his submissions was that the complaint does not make out a case to have entertained the same, what to talk of the impugned order having been passed in it by the District Forum below. Even the basic ingredients bringing the complaint within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 had not been set out. We, however if from the pleadings of the parties, as well as from the documents placed by them a consumer dispute is made out then certainly the dispute between the parties is required to be adjudicated upon, as has been done by the District Forum below, though wrongly according to Mr. Gupta.
(2.) BY means of impugned order passed by District Forum Shimla in Consumer Complaint No. 109/2003, on 23.7.2008 appellant has been directed to pay to respondent No.1 sum of Rs. 30,000/ - being balance of sale proceeds of 324 apple boxes along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e. 13.1.2003 till the final payment besides cost of Rs. 2000/ -. Appellant has been directed to comply with the said order within a period of 45 days after the date of receipt of copy of the order, hence this appeal.
(3.) ACCORDING to respondent No.1 he sent 324 apple boxes to the appellant through respondent No.2 vide billty (Goods Receipt) GR No. 1064. This was issued by respondent No.2 when apple boxes were sent to respondent No.1. Further according to the respondent No.1 he forwarded 324 apple boxes through respondent No.2 to the appellant, who sold those for a net sum of Rs. 28,892/ - 100 boxes and 81,207/ - for 224 boxes. Copies of sale bills have been placed on record as Annexures C -2 and C -3 with the complaint file. It is evident that the present dispute between the parties relates to the balance of same proceeds of Annexure C -3. Further case of the respondent No.1 is that despite sale documents issued by the appellant, it failed to remit the whole amount and had stated that the amount has been paid as per endorsement on Annexure C -2, according to him a sum of Rs.50,707/ - has been paid qua Annexure C -3, and the balance sum of Rs.30,000/ - was still payable by the appellant to him. This fact is also mentioned in Annexure C - 3. Despite several visits by respondent No.1 to the appellant at Delhi, it failed to remit the balance amount. He approached respondent No.2 regarding payment of apple boxes because it was he who forced him to send the apple boxes to the appellant and for that he had charged commission on each apple box. In this background respondent No.1 pleaded that he suffered mental harassment due to acts of appellant and respondent No.2, and for not remitting the balance amount, complaint was filed.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.