SHIVAM PRAKASHAN vs ASIAN MACHINERY COMPANY (P) LTD.

THIS is a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the Act) with the allegations that with a view to settle himself, M/s. Shivam Prakashan was established and with a view to carry on the business of publication, quotations from opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, which is the manufacturing company and its proprietor, for purchase of offset printing press and other equipments required were invited. After the receipt of the quotations, written order was placed along with a cheque of Rs. 1,00,000/- drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Jhansi. However, delivery instead of making within 15 days as stipulated was not made in time and when the matter was complained, it was made to understand by opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 that in case of full payment the machines in question could be sent to the complainant within a week and in pursuance thereof payments were made as per details given in Annexure 1. When the machines were delivered and opened in the presence of one P. Oberoi, the representative of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 , it was found that the machine was damaged and certain parts of the machine were not there. Inspite of assurances the defective machines were not replaced and other parts were not consigned causing heavy loss and hence the complaint.

THE opposite parties, besides placing its stand on merit and the written statement, some preliminary objections too were made in the written statement. It was averred in the written statement that because of the fault on the part of the complainant as well as the Bankers and non-sending of Form 32 the supply could not be effected. For the reasons hereinafter given inspite of time being given, documents were not filed by the complainant. We had an occassion to look into the preliminary objections and in our opinion the complaint can be disposed of on merits in view of the preliminary objections.

The main grievance of the complainant is that inspite of entering into a contract, the offset machine and allied parts were not supplied in the condition in which as per stipulation it should have been. The allegation is that there was a delayed delivery and that too the defective machinery and some of the consignments were not made whereas from the side of the opposite parties the allegation is that the consignment could not be sent because of own lapses of the complainant and even it was made clear that he was not interested in the remaining consignments, i.e., camera etc. The complainant also concealed the fact a cheque for Rs. 75,000/- issued to the opposite parties as advance amount was bouched.

THERE are also complicated questions of facts which for the proper determination of the complaint are to be decided. It is only possible through detailed appreciation of the documents which in a summary proceedings like the present one is not possible. The proper Forum could be the Civil Court. Even there is yet another hurdle in proceeding with the complaint. As per terms of the contract the quotations were invited and issued at Delhi, payment was to be received and was actually received at Delhi and the goods were despatched from Delhi in the presence of complainant''s representative and all the transactions were agreed to be subject to Delhi jurisdiction. Even the cheque was issued of State Bank of India, Naraina Branch, New Delhi in favour of the complainant who himself got it encashed personally. Besides that the nature of the allegation which the complainant made would go to show that the complainant is a business concern running on large scale and goods in question were required for commercial purpose. Obviously the dispute is not a consumer dispute. In view of the cause of action arising not within the jurisdiction of this State Commission, the complaint otherwise too is not entertainable. ORDER The complaint is dismissed. In the circumstances the parties are directed to bear their costs. Complaint dismissed.