CATVISION PRODUCTS LTD Vs. PRAGATI COMPUTERS P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of the above three first appeals as all of them arise out of the Order passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pondicherry in D No. 1 of 1991. The said complaint was filed by the appellants in Appeal No. 465 of 1993 against M/s. Madras Carbons Ltd. (Appellant in Appeal No. 296/93 and hereinafter referred to Opposite Party No. 1) and M/s. Catvision Products Ltd. (Appellant in appeal No. 221 /93 and hereinafter referred to as Opposite Party No. 2).

(2.) THE appeal by the Madras Carbons Ltd. has been filed after a delay of 37 days. Application for condonation of delay has been filed. Though the grounds mentioned in that application do not show sufficient cause for condoning the delay, but in the present case as we are of the opinion that the order of the State Commission is without jurisdiction, we condone the delay.

(3.) THE first Opposite Party i.e. the Madras Carbons Pvt. Ltd. took a stand that the transaction was between the Complainant and the Opposite Party No. 2 i.e. M/s. Catvision Products Ltd. and it was only a middleman who acted upon the instructions of the Opposite Party No.2 and therefore, it was not a necessary party to the case. The State Commission rejected the plea and hold that Opposite Party No. 1 was an agent of Opposite Party No. 2 who actually sold the system, therefore the Complainant was entitled to seek relief against both of them.