IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> <br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 172/10 DATED 05.05.2010<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant The President, Karnataka Consumers’ Forum (Reg) 93, 9th cross, Gokulam 1st stage, Mysore.<br /> <br /> (In person)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party 1. The Honorary Secretary General, Indian Medical Association, National Head Quarters, I.M.A. Buildings, Indraprastha Road, New Delhi-110002. <br /> 2. Eureka Forbes, 85, Saniya Road, Prabha Devi, Mumbai-400025.<br /> <br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 27.04.2010<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : <br /> Date of order : 05.05.2010<br /> Duration of Proceeding : <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Complainant has filed the complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties, seeking direction to stop the unfair trade practice and to pay compensation and cost of the proceedings.<br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint, amongst other facts it is alleged that, the first opposite party Indian Medical Association, has no legal authority to conduct quality testing of the products and to issue certificate of quality to the manufacturers. Many manufacturers like Dettol, Aqua water purifiers are telecasting that their products are certified by the first opposite party. The second opposite party, manufacturer of water purifier has printed a seal with Logo of the first opposite party that, it is certified by the first opposite party. Said act amounts to unfair trade practice.<br /> <br /> 3. Considering the facts alleged and the material on record, we heard the complainant regarding admissibility and maintainability and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 4. Now, we have to consider whether the complaint is admissible and maintainable in law?<br /> <br /> 5. For the following reasons, our finding is in negative.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 6. At the out set, as provided Under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, a complaint shall have to be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits, the opposite party resides or works for gain or the cause of action arose. In the case on hand, admittedly both the opposite parties are not residing within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.<br /> 7. Regarding cause of action, the learned complainant submitted that, the second opposite party has sold it’s products through the dealer at Mysore. First of all, to substantiate this fact, neither the dealer of the second opposite party at Mysore, is party to the present case nor the purchaser of the said product. Not only this, to substantiate the alleged sale, no material is placed on record.<br /> <br /> 8. The complainant alleges that, the first opposite party having no authority to conduct quality test of the product, has certified the same and as such it amounts to unfair trade practice. The first opposite party is Indian Medical Association. The unfair trade practice is defined Under Section 2 ( r) of the Consumer Protection Act. The definition starts stating that, unfair trade practice means a trade practice which for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service. Hence, the practice to be termed as an unfair, must be for the purpose of promoting the sale or for supply of goods or service. In the case on hand, the first opposite party Indian Medical Association is not doing any trade and assuming that, it as certified certain thing has claimed by the complainant, it has not for the purpose of trade or service. In this connection, the definition of trader defined Under Section 2(q) needs to be noted. As defined therein, trader means a person, who sells or distributes. In the case on hand, the first opposite party is not at all doing any trade in any product. So also it is not rendering any service in respect of said products.<br /> <br /> 9. Also, it is relevant to note that grievance of the complainant is that, the second opposite party has sold its products with Logo of the first opposite party stating that, the product has been certified by the first opposite party. It is not the case of the complainant that, the first opposite party has not certified the product of the second opposite party and without such certification the second opposite party is selling the product. If that was so, it could have been considered that, the second opposite party is selling the product without certification by the first by misleading or misrepresenting of the purchaser. But, that is not the grievance of the complainant.<br /> <br /> 10. So also it is relevant to note that, as alleged in the complaint, cause of action arose on 28.05.2008 and the present complaint is filed nearly after about one year 11 months. It is not the question of limitation, but the complainant being voluntarily consumer organization why waited for such a long period.<br /> <br /> 11. For the reasons noted above, we are of the opinion that, the complaint is not maintainable and it cannot be admitted. Accordingly, we pass the following order.<br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> 1. The complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. Give a copy of this order to complainant according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 5th May 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br />