NATURE WEALTH RESEARCH LABORATORIES (P) LIMITED Vs. MADAN SHARMA
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Nature Wealth Research Laboratories (P) Limited
Click here to view full judgement.
ARUN KUMAR GOEL -
(1.) FACTS giving rise to this case are that the respondent placed order for supply of certain goods on 12.10.2002 of the value of Rs. 50,000. Advance or Rs. 1,000 to the agent of the appellant was given. Against ordered goods of the value of Rs. 50,000, appellant remitted the goods worth Rs. 46,069. These were not genuine, therefore, alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the appellant, complaint was filed by the respondent with a prayer to seek refund of Rs. 50,000 along with interest @ 18% per annum and compensation of Rs. 20,000 including wages of Rs. 6,000 of labour and cost of litigation.
(2.) WHEN put to notice, appellant questioned the status of the respondent as a consumer, jurisdiction of the Forum was also challenged. According to it, complaint was not maintainable. It was admitted that goods worth Rs. 46,069 were sent. For want of 'C' form from the respondent, instead of 4% central sales tax 12% and a sum of Rs. 612.82 was still payable by the respondent. Plea regarding the standard/quality of the goods set out by the respondent was denied. Deficiency of service as well as unfair trade practice was also denied by the appellant.
(3.) PERUSAL of the complaint file shows that appellant appointed the respondent as Super Distributor vide Annexure R.5 on 12.10.2002 in the State of Himachal Pradesh for the districts of Solan, Shimla, Bilaspur, Hamirpur, Mandi, Kullu, Kinnaur and Sirmour. Annexure A.1 is the order given by the respondent as Super Distributor of the products of the appellant to the latter. In this behalf, Annexure A.3 is the invoice of the goods. When Annexures A.1 and A.3 are put together it is evident that of its own and without any reason or rhyme, according to the learned Counsel for the respondent, quantity of goods supplied was increased. Why, could not be explained on behalf of the appellant. In the ordinary course of business, respondent placed orders for the supply of goods with the appellant looking to its requirement. This clearly shows that this is not only a case of deficiency in service, but also unfair trade practice having been indulged by the appellant. Why and at whose instance the quantities ordered by the respondent were changed unilaterally by the appellant, its learned Counsel had no answer.
Respondent has further pleaded that the goods were not of the quality for which order was placed by him. He has supported this fact by his affidavit filed in evidence. The same has not been controverted by any evidence on behalf of the appellant, why, could not be explained on its behalf.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.