GANGARAM SINHA vs Swaroop Chand Jain

THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 17.9.2002 in Complaint No. 17/2002 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called the ''District Forum'' for short), dismissing the complaint of the complainant/appellant.

ACCORDING to the complainant the opposite party/respondent is a Commission Agent and purchases grains and rice and makes payment of the price thereof to the seller, after deducting his commission. It was further averred that on 28.11.1997 the complainant sold 35 quintals of paddy at the rate of Rs. 425/- per quintal for a total amount of Rs. 14,800/- to the opposite party/respondent. The respondent paid Rs. 800/- towards part payment of price and agreed to pay balance of Rs. 14,000/- later on. The respondent also executed and gave a document to that effect to the complainant/appellant. The respondent however did not pay the balance amount to the complainant as was agreed between the parties. The complainant, therefore, sent a registered notice dated 24.12.2001 to the respondent, but without any result. Hence complaint was lodged before the District Forum. The complaint was resisted by the opposite party/respondent. He admitted in his written version that he is a Commission Agent and that he acts as intermediary and obtains commission from the seller. The respondent has further admitted that complainant/appellant has sold paddy on 28.11.1997 as has been averred by him. Further according to the opposite parties he himself did not purchase the paddy, but had brought the purchaser in contact with the complainant. He has averred that the complainant after paying the amount of commission to him (respondent) had gone away. However, the complainant later complained to the respondent that the purchaser did not pay the complainant, price of the paddy and sought the help of the respondent in realising the said amount from the purchaser. However, as per his averments, the respondent declined the request as above by the complainant, as it was being asked for belatedly. It was, therefore, averred by the opposite party/respondent that he was not liable to pay any amount to the complainant.

The District Forum in the impugned order held that the dispute between the parties is not a consumer dispute and complainant has also not proved that the price of paddy was not paid to him. Accordingly it was held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. The complaint was accordingly dismissed.

THE complainant was heard in support of this appeal. None appeared for the respondent. We have also perused the record. As noticed earlier the complainant''s averments that the respondent is a Commission Agent has been admitted by the respondent. It is also not denied by the respondent that the complainant sold 35 quintals of paddy at the rate of Rs. 425/- per quintal, the total price which amounts to Rs. 14,800/-. The complainant''s averments that Rs. 800/- only were paid to him towards the said price is also not denied by the respondent. A slip was also given by the respondent to the complainant in regard to the said transaction. It would thus appear that respondent acted as a Commission Agent in the said transaction. Thus, it would appear that the respondent dealt with the complainant/appellant as Commission Agent which was also virtually admitted by the respondent in his written version. Possibly, the transaction was entered into by the respondent on behalf of some other purchaser and the respondent agreed to pay the balance of price to the complainant, as would be evident by the slip given to the complainant by the respondent. The said slip shows that amount of Rs. 14,000/- was to be given by the respondent to the complainant. Since the respondent acted as Commission Agent, the relationship between the parties was that of a consumer and service provider.

IN the foregoing circumstances, it is clear that the transaction as above was entered into by the respondent in his capacity as Commission Agent and he had agreed to pay a balance price of Rs. 14,000/- to the complainant/appellant. However he failed to discharge his obligation and has not paid the amount as averred by the complainant in his complaint. IN the circumstances we hold that the complainant/appellant could competently file the complaint which deserves to be allowed in the foregoing circumstances. The District Forum erred in dismissing the complaint. Accordingly this appeal and the complaint is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. It is directed that the respondent shall pay to the complainant/appellant balance price of Rs. 14,000/- (fourteen thousand) with interest at the rate of 10% per annum thereon from the date of complaint. The respondent shall also pay cost of this litigation to the complainant/appellant which is quantified as Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. one thousand) only. Appeal allowed.