Unit Trust of India vs R.S.DUBE

THIS appeal is directed against order dated 13th January, 1995 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred as District Forum) Bhopal in Complaint Case No. 245/ 93.

THE facts of the case briefly stated are that complainant having failed to receive unit certificates, wrote a letter to the opposite party on 5.8.1992 and a reminder on 21.9.1992, but to no avail. Because of non-receipt of unit certificates, the complainant suffered a loss of Rs. 36,000/-. He, therefore, filed a complaint in the District Forum, Bhopal and prayed for directions to opposite party to pay damages worth Rs. 36,000/-, together with cost of proceedings Rs. 250/- and 24% interest thereon. Opposite party sent a reply by post but failed to appear before the District Forum and hence the proceedings were made ex-parte. THE District Forum held the appellants responsible for loss sustained by complainant due to their fault and ordered payment of Rs. 28,500/- compensation for loss sustained alongwith Rs. 500/- for cost of proceedings and Rs. 280/- for notice charges. In this appeal, the appellants have stated that they were not aware of the proceedings in the Forum after their reply. If they had been given the opportunity to clarify, they would have willingly and gladly done so. However, the District Forum, proceeded ex-parte in the matter. At the out-set the appellants made an appli- cation on 7.8.1995 to join Smt. B. Mudgal and Smt. S. Dube as complainant Nos. 2 and 3 in the interest of justice. The Commission give permission under its order dated 7.8.1995. Appellants in their memo have submitted that they despatched the unit certificates on 27.2.1992 much ahead of the stipulated time. In the District Forum they had submitted bulk postal receipt, indicating the folio number, registration number, name, post office, pin code, number of certificates, postage, postal date, etc., the District Forum did not take any notice of it. They further challenged the order of the District Forum about the address of the complainant by their averment indicating that they had despatched more than 17 lacs window envelopes, containing 90 lacs certificates, where the address is displayed through the window of the envelope. Not only this, they on their own wrote to the complainant on 7.4.1993 that the unit certificates despatched by them have been returned undelivered by Postal Authorities. They have now been despatched on 30.12.1992. The appellants have further averred that the District Forum probably failed to appreciate the enormous volume of work involved in despatching certificates and also the amount of care and precision involved in the task which the appellants were performing. They further averred that District Forum''s order about payment of Rs. 28,500/- was without basis as for this transaction the complainant could not be treated as consumer. For this point they relied on the judgment of Hon''ble National Commission in the case of Ramnarayan Parmeswara lyer and Another v. Larsen and Tubro, I (1993) CPJ 3 (NC), in which their Lordship held that "persons who purchased certain goods for resale are not consumers under the Act". They have also cited the case of C.D.R.F., Guntur dated 5.2.1994 Raj Brahmanandan v. Datamatics, in which the Commission observed "share market is always speculative. The complainants claim for compensation on account of decline in the share market of the master plus is rejected". Appellants prayed for quashing the order dated 13.1.1995 of District Forum, Bhopal.

Having heard both the parties and having perused the record of the case including the order of the District Forum and the appeal memo, we are of the opinion that the appeal must succeed. Appellants have brought on record the enormous amount of work done by them to despatch the certificates, the care taken by them and the amount of precision required, which they attend to. They have also demonstrated the effort done by them with transparent sincerely. In view of this we do hot agree with the view of District Forum that there is any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. There is considerable force in their averment that envelopes returned to them undelivered after considerable lapse of time are in extremely torn and mutilated condition and unfortunately they have to submit such envelopes only in Courts. We certainly feel that it is not their fault that envelopes are in such condition. We, therefore, hold that appellants are not guilty of negligence | or deficiency in service. Order of the District Forum in this regard cannot be sustained legally.

APPELLANTS have also demonstrated that respondent is not entitled to any compensation for the loss he is alleged to have suffered. Judgments of National Commission and C.D.R.F., Guntur described in para 3, clearly established the case of appellants. We are in agreement with the decisions cited above which are applicable to this case. In the context of discussion in preceding paragraphs the appeal succeeds and is allowed. Order dated 13.1.1995 of District Forum, Bhopal is hereby set aside. The original complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.