Ashok Rangnani vs Sulochana Naidu And Ors.

MR . Justice Ashok Bhan, President -Ashok Rangnani, Proprietor, Sandeep Agency, who is the Dealer of Baron International Limited, who manufactures Akai brand of televisions has filed the present Revision Petition against the Order of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission'' for short) whereby and whereunder, the State Commission, after setting aside the Order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum'' for short) and dismissing the complaint, allowed the appeal.

BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are:

RESPONDENT Nos. 1 to 3, legal representatives of B.I.R. Naidu, had, in his life -time, purchased an Akai brand television under profit order scheme of Baron International Limited from local dealer -Sandeep Agency, Raipur on 14.8.1998. As per averments made in the complaint, the current price of the said television was Rs. 23,000 but under the above -said scheme, if a purchaser deposited the sum of Rs. 30,000, then, after 5 years and 11 months, the said amount of Rs. 30,000 was to be refunded to the purchaser. It was further averred in the complaint that at the time of purchase of the television, Dealer -petitioner herein had also handed over a post -dated cheque for Rs. 30,000 drawn under the authorized signatories of Baron International Limited. B.I.R. Naidu died on 11.12.1999. Subsequently, when the complainants deposited the above -said cheque of Rs. 30,000 with their bankers, the said cheque was returned back with the report that the account of which the cheque had been drawn had been blocked. Thereupon, the complainants contacted the local Dealer and requested him to make payment of Rs. 30,000 but he refused to do so. They also made correspondences with the Director of Baron International Limited but of no avail. Legal notice was served on the petitioner but the same was not responded too. Being aggrieved, respondents filed a complaint before the District Forum. After notice, petitioner as well as Baron International Limited put in appearance. Written reply was filed only by the petitioner in which it was stated that Ashok Rangnani was not the proprietor of Sandeep Agency. It was denied that any cheque was handed over to B.I.R. Naidu. It was averred in the written version that the petitioner has neither taken any commission nor had signed any cheque and given to B.I.R. Naidu and, hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

DISTRICT Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that no scheme had been filed by either of the parties to the effect that in case a person pays Rs. 30,000 for a television instead of Rs. 23,000, then, the amount of Rs. 30,000 would be refunded back, as alleged in the complaint. That there was no averment in the complaint regarding any manufacturing defect in the goods. That the cheque had been issued by Baron International Limited. That Ashok Rangnani was not a Dealer.

AGGRIEVED against this, the respondents filed an Appeal before the State Commission along with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the CPC'' for short), to take on record copy of the advertisement got published by Baron International Limited in the newspapers and statement of accounts of B.I.R. Naidu issued by the Corporation Bank for the relevant period. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, the State Commission allowed the Application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code and took on record the documents filed by the complainants in the interest of justice.

THE State Commission came to the conclusion that the petitioner and Baron International Limited were guilty of adopting unfair trade practices and, accordingly, allowed the complaint and held the petitioner as well as Baron International Limited jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000 to the complainant within 2 months failing which the awarded amount was to carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of default. Rs. 1,000 were awarded as costs.

BARON International Limited has not challenged the Order passed by the State Commission. Petitioner, who was the dealer of Baron International Limited, has challenged the Order on the short ground that the advertisement had been issued by Baron International Limited and the cheque in question was also issued by Baron International Limited through its authorized signatories. In view of the fact that the petitioner had neither issued the advertisement nor given the cheque to the respondent, the petitioner could not be held liable to pay the sum of Rs. 30,000 to the respondents.

WE have gone through the advertisement which was got issued by Baron International Limited. The cheque has been drawn by Baron International Limited. In the advertisement, an assurance was given that the sum of Rs. 30,000 deposited by purchaser would be returned after 5 years and 11 months. An advance cheque was to be handed over to the purchaser which in this case was handed over to B.I.R. Naidu, which on being deposited, was returned with the remark "account had been blocked." Advertisement and cheque were issued by Baron International Limited. Petitioner, who is a Dealer, cannot be held liable to pay as he had neither held out the promise nor issued the cheque. It has not been shown that unfair trade practice had been adopted by Baron International Limited in connivance with the petitioner. Under the circumstances, petitioner cannot be held liable to pay the aforesaid amount.

ACCORDINGL Y , we allow the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner leaving the respondents/complainants to recover the amount awarded by the State Commission from Baron International Limited. No costs. R.P. allowed.