ELECTRONICS And ELECTRONICS vs SHRI NET RAM

THIS appeal has been filed by the Electronics & Electronics Defendant No. 2 against the judgment of the District Forum dated 9th February, 1990 directing Defendant No. 2 to pay Rs. 23,300/- with interest @ Rs. 16.5% per annum with quarterly rests to the complainant (Respondent No. 1) within one month from the date of the order.

BRIEFLY, the case of the complainant is that he got quotation No. 980 dated 17th May, 1989 from defendant No. 2 for purchase of one Bush Colour Television (with remote control), one Kelvinator Fridge and one Philips Stereo system. Later, he handed over to them a cheque No. 927897 dated the 17th May, 89 for Rs. 23,300/- drawn on the State Bank of India, Ambedkar Nagar, Madangir, New Delhi drawn in their favour. It is alleged that the cheque had been encashed by them but they had not given the delivery of the aforesaid three items to him. Consequently, he filed a complaint against the defendants for recovery of the said amount. Defendant No. 2 in their reply stated that they sold one Orson Colour T. V., one Kelvinator Fridge & one Bush Stereo system against draft No. 927897 dated 17th May, 1989 drawn on the State Bank of India, Madangir for Rs. 20,300/- to Shri R. Sahai. They denied that any banker Cheque No. 927897 dated 17.5.89 for a sum of Rs. 23,300/- was received by them from Sh. Net Ram. They also alleged that they issued a Bill No. 1221 dated 24.5.89 in favour of the said Sh. R. Sahai. The State Bank of India, defendant No. 1 filed a separate reply dated the 5th September, 89 wherein it was stated by them that Sh. Net Ram was delivered the banker Cheque No. 920856 dated 22nd May, 89 for Rs. 23,300/- favouring M/s Electronics & Electronics defendant No. 2 for purchase of electric goods. The said cheque had been honoured by the Bank on 25th May, 1989 and the amount had been paid to M/s Electronics & Electronics through their banker.

The Forum after receipt of the replies heard the parties and ordered M/s Electronics & Electronics to find out from their records if they had supplied any goods to the complainant and if so of what value. The case was adjourned to 17th October, 89. On that date the learned District Forum heard the parties and reserved the order for 18th October, 89. It passed the order directing defendant No. 2 to pay Rs. 23,300/- with interest @ 16.5% per annum, with quarterly rests within one month from the date of the order to the complainant on 18.10.89. However, the order of the District Forum was signed only by the President.

M/s Electronics & Electronics came up in appeal against the said order to this Commission. The Commission vide order dated the 5th January, 90 held that the order was not in confirmity with the provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the Act, as it had been signed by the President of the District Forum only. Consequently, the Commission accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the District Forum for fresh decision. The Forum again heard the case on 9th February, 90 and passed the impugned order. No document was produced before the Forum by the appellant even after 17th October, 89. Two questions that arise for determination are; firstly whether banker''s cheque for Rs. 23,300/- was handed over to the appellant by Sh. Net Ram and, secondly, if the reply of first question was in the affirmative, whether the goods were supplied by the appellant to him. In view of the reply of the Bank dated the 5th September, 89 it is evident that Cheque No. 920856 dated 22nd May, 1989 for Rs. 23,300/- favouring M/s Electronics & Electronics was delivered to Sh. Net Ram. It is thus clear that the cheque came in the custody of Sh. Net Ram. The appellant in the grounds of appeal has admitted that they received a Cheque No. 920856 dated 22nd May, 1989 drawn on the State Bank of India, Madangir, New Delhi. However, they state that the said cheque was brought by one Shri Birbal to whom they delivered one colour T.V. (Bush), one Kelvinator Fridge and one Stereo system (Philips) and he acknowledged the same by signing the challan. But they have not produced the challan. The Commission vide orders dated 19th July, 1990 had asked the Counsel for the appellant as to whether the appellant could produce the documents to substantiate their contention. The learned Counsel admitted that they had none. An amount of Rs. 23,300/- was admittedly received by the appellant. In case the appellant had given the abovesaid three items to Birbal, they must have prepared the cash memo obtained receipt from the person to whom delivery of the items was given and made entries in their books. However, neither of the said documents has been produced by them, though an opportunity to do so was given even by the Commission. It is established that the cheque was handed over by the bank to the complainant-respondent. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that the cheque was given to the appellant by Birbal. After taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances the only conclusion that can be reached is that the draft was handed over to the appellant by Sh. Net Ram, respondent. The appellant has alleged that they delivered the above said items to Shri Birbal. No letter of authority on behalf of Net Ram authorising Birbal to collect the said items from the appellant has been produced. Even if it may be assumed that the above said three items were delivered by the appellant to Birbal that can not be taken to be a delivery to the appellant. For the aforesaid reasons we are of the opinion that the decree for recovery of Rs. 23,300/- passed in favour of Net Ram respondent is correct and there are no ground to up set the same. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same. However, we leave the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.