PRAKASH vs RADHESHYAM AGARWAL

-THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission dismissing his complaint holding that he was not a ''consumer'' upholding the order passed by the District Forum.

THE allegation of the complainant was that he being co-owner of the agricultural land situated at village Asola in Distt. Nagpur, constructed a bore well to irrigate the said agricultural land by Sawarkar Bore Well. He purchased the submersible pump and electric installation from the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for entire cost of Rs. 38,910. The complainant was an employee of respondent No. 4 as well as relation of one of the partners of respondent No. 4. He made a part payment. Since the respondent No. 4 had business relations with respondent Nos. 1 to 3, the invoice, bill and delivery memo dated 28. 2. 2001 were issued in the name of respondent No. 4. The delivery was received by his elder brother of the complainant/petitioner. The submersible pump was installed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The rope wire used was found to be defective being of sub-standard quality, broken down and submersible pump broken down and fallen down and was ruptured. The entire operation of the bore well came to standstill since 8. 8. 2001 though the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 assured to set right the defect but avoided to do so. When the respondent failed to set right and repair the bore well, a complaint had to be filed before the District Forum after serving notice. The respondent contested the matter before the District Forum, inter alia on the ground that the complainant had no right to file complaint saying that neither he had purchased anything from them, nor hired any services from them, hence he was not a consumer under Sections 2 (d) (i), 2 (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. They also denied the fact that they were in the business of installation of submersible pumps and electric installation, and they had not undertaken any such kind of installation work. The invoice was for Rs. 27,910 for which, the amount of Rs. 29,910 was paid vide cheque No. 068217 dated 1. 3. 2001 by the opposite party No. 4 i. e. M/s. Amiya Sales Corporation. It was M/s. Amiya Sales Corporation, who had purchased these goods and made the due payments. A sum of Rs. 10,728 by cheque bearing No. 577737 dated 27. 3. 2001 was also made by the opposite party No. 4 against the Bill No. 2473 dated 28. 2. 2001.

Initially, the respondent No. 4 did neither appear, nor filed their version. Later on, however, respondent No. 4 filed their submissions, supporting the case of the complainant/petitioner.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. There is no denying of the fact that the bill was issued in the name of M/s. Amiya Sales Corporation. The amount of Rs. 29,910 was paid vide cheque No. 068217 dated 1. 3. 2001 by the opposite party No. 4. Delivery challan was made in the name of respondent No. 4, M/s. Amiya Sales Corporation. As such, M/s. Amiya Sales Corporation had purchased these goods and made the payments. The facts that the cheque was issued by M/s. Amiya Sales Corporation that the invoice, bill and delivery memo was in the name of M/s. Amiya Sales Corporation and if the bill was issued on 28. 2. 2001, and the purchaser was not M/s. Amiya Sales Corporation but the complainant, then the complainant was not supposed to keep quiet for issuing a wrong bill in the wrong name and should insisted upon for issuing correct bill. Even the Amiya Sales Corporation should have objected to the issuance of wrong bill. Supposing for the sake of argument, it is accepted that some amount was paid by the complainant/petitioner to M/s. Amiya Sales Corporation, it could be their own internal arrangement and would not affect the title in the property unless it was objected to at the very initial stage. At the time of delivery it might have been so mentioned. But no steps whatsoever were taken even when the rope wire and submersible pump had fallen in the bore well.

IN the light of the above facts, we find it difficult to take any view than the view taken by the State Commission. Consequently, there is no force in this revision petition. It is dismissed accordingly. R. P. dismissed.