MADHAV PROCESSORS vs VEERPRABHU MARKETING LTD.

BOTH these appeals arises upon an order of the learned District Forum, Jodhpur dated 28.4.1995 out of Complaint No. 395/1994 which has been filed by M/s. Madhav Processors, Jodhpur against M/s. Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd., Jodhpur and M/s. Tata Engineering and Locomative Co. Ltd., Mumbai and as such are being disposed of by this common order.

FACTS relevant for disposal of these appeals in brief are that the appellant M/s. Madhav Processors in Appeal No. 1043/1995 purchased one Tata Mobile Pickup on 22.2.1993 from M/s. Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd. at a price of Rs. 2,63,562.60. The vehicle in question was manufactured by the respondent No. 2 M/s. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd., Mumbai. The case of the appellant-complainant has been that since the said vehicle was having manufacturing defect right from the very beginning i.e. its engine and back compres or got overheated and it had also various defects as listed in para 3 of the complaint; pertaining to wheel alignment, defective gear box, defective steering, wheel wobbling and also that its doors also did not close properly making noise. It is also averred that because of the defective vehicle, he had to purchase oil worth Rs. 25,000/- in the past 14 months. He, therefore, approached the opposite parties but having failed to succeed, filed the complaint before the learned District Forum to claim the replacement of the vehicle in question or to refund him the cost of the vehicle i.e. Rs. 2,63,562/- and further claimed an amount of Rs. 1 lac on misc. expenses incurred by him in respect of the vehicle besides claiming Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and cost of litigation. The complaint was resisted by both the respondents by filing a written version. The learned District Forum after consideration of the evidence led on behalf of both the parties; dismissed the complaint holding that neither the complainant is a consumer nor the dispute gives rise to a consumer dispute.

Hence Appeal No. 1043/1995 has been filed by M/s. Madhav Processors being aggrieved from the order of the learned District Forum and Appeal No. 1498/1995 has been filed by one Shri Pankaj Agarwal s/o Shri Prem Mohanji Govila r/o Jodhpur who has not been a party to the Original Complaint No. 395/1994 filed by M/s. Madhav Processors. This appellant Shri Pankaj Agarwal has not only arrayed the appellant in Appeal No. 1043/1995 but also respondents therein. In his appeal, he has further arrayed one Shri Suresh Daga, the President and Member of the District Forum as also one Shri B.C. Parakh and Shri Akshey Parakh, an Advocate.

WE heard the learned Counsel for the parties at great length and have perused the record in great detail. The District Forum has been of the view that the vehicle in question has been purchased by the appellant-complainant for commercial purposes and not solely for earning her livelihood and accordingly dismissed the complaint. The learned Counsel for the appellant has tried to argue that the vehicle in question was purchased by the appellant for earning her own livelihood. However, a perusal of the documents filed by the appellant more particularly the letter dated 28.2.1994 addressed by the appellant to the respondent M/s. Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd.; the certificate of posting (UPC) dated 8.7.1994 bearing the addresses of the respondents exhibits that M/s. Madhav Processors is a commercial concern who publicize itself as a Manufacturer, Merchandizers and Exporters of Textiles. It has not only three telephone numbers but also a telex number and its Banker is Canara Bank, Jalori Gate, Jodhpur. This is apparent from the subject matter printed at the bottom of the letter-heads of M/s. Madhav Processors (appellant) on which the afore-mentioned correspondence was made. It is also made out that the payment of the vehicle has also been made by the appellant i.e. M/s. Madhav Processors and the warranty claim form dated 21.2.1994 also indicates that the owner of the vehicle in question is M/s. Madhav Processors, E-57, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur. It appears that the complainant did not approach the District Forum with clean hands and did not declare the legal status of M/s. Madhav Processors knowingly. M/s. Madhav Processors appears to be an entirely independent institution so also Smt. Shakuntala, an independent person. In other words, the effort of the appellant has been to conceal its true character in which it has failed, which is apparent from the afore-mentioned documents wherein M/s. Madhav Processors has been indicated to run its business of Manufacturers, Merchandizers and Exporters of Textiles and carried on its commercial business through its Banker Canara Bank, Jalori Gate, Jodhpur. Further, also in its establishment it has three telephones viz. 33173, 33539 and 25005 besides a Telex bearing No. 552-282-03 MMF. The question is, can such an establishment who has three telephone connections, a Telex and has a Banker and who deals in the business of Manufacturers, Merchandizers and Exporters of Textiles, claim it to run a vocation to earn her own livelihood; our answer to it is an emphatic ''No''.

IT thus goes to establish that the appellant is engaged in commercial business and the vehicle in question was purchased by it to carry on its commercial business on a very large scale and successfully. Applying the principles of law laid down by Hon''ble the National Commission in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Non Destructive Test Appliances (P) Ltd., III (2002) CPJ 263 (NC)=2002 CTJ 255 (CP) (NCDRC), as also in the case of Sakthi Engineering Works & Anr. v. Sri Krishna Coir Rope Industry, III (2000) CPJ 13 (NC)=2000 CTJ 751 (CP) (NCDRC); the vehicle in question does not appear to have been purchased by Smt. Shakuntala representing herself as Proprietor of the appellant; solely and exclusively to run her own livelihood but for commercial purposes of the appellant M/s. Madhav Processors. We, therefore, are of the firm view that the learned District Forum has not committed any error whatsoever in arriving at a conclusion that the appellant does not fall within the definition of a consumer and that no consumer dispute has arisen between the parties within the provisions of the C.P. Act, 1986. Consequently, it is held that Appeal No. 1043/1995 filed by M/s. Madhav Processors has no force and is dismissed with cost at Rs. 2,500/- to each of the respondents. Coming now to appeal filed by Shri Pankaj Agarwal being Appeal No. 1498/1995, it may be observed at the outset that the appellant has no ''locus standi'' to file any appeal which he has tried to coin it as revision/misc. application etc. arraying not only the present respondents in Appeal No. 1043/1995 as party to it but also the President, Member of the District Consumer Forum and Advocates and one Shri Suresh Daga as respondents in his appeal whereas none of the persons viz. Shri Suresh Daga, Shri Ram Awatar Khandelwal, Smt. Sarojni Kumari, Shri B.C. Parakh and Shri Akshey Parakh were parties to the Original Complaint No. 395/1994 filed by M/s. Madhav Processors. Moreover, the name of Pankaj Agarwal (appellant in this appeal) does not find place anywhere in the array of parties in Appeal No. 1043/1995 filed by M/s. Madhav Processors. It is settled law that to file an appeal against any order of the Court or Tribunal is not a vested right of any party/person. It is a right which is conferred under the statute. If the statute does not confer any right upon the party to file an appeal; any party/person cannot take liberty with law and law Courts. We find that Appeal No. 1498/1995 filed by Shri Pankaj Agarwal is not only uncalled for but highly vexatious and in fact a step to create hurdle in the administration of justice. Accordingly while dismissing this Appeal No. 1498/1995 filed by Shri Pankaj Agarwal, we impose a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid proportionately by the appellant Shri Pankaj Agarwal to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Appeal No. 1498/1995. Ordered accordingly. Appeals dismissed.