Karnataka

StateCommission

A/1881/2018

M/s KAFF Appliances Pvt. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jayanth Balakrishna - Opp.Party(s)

R.M.Prakash

23 Jun 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE

 

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JUNE 2021

 

PRESENT

 

 MR. KRISHNAMURTHY B. SANGANNAVAR     : JUDICIAL MEMBER

MRS. DIVYASHREE M.                                     : MEMBER

 

Appeal No. 1881/2018

 

1.  M/s KAFF Appliances Pvt. Ltd.      through its Authorised Signatory,      SS Plaza, 4th floor,      Block-A, Hilton Garden Inn, Sec-47,      Gurugram. 2.  Caliber Kitchen      Sri Jesudas,      No.32/1, Yashodha Nagar,      Jakkur Aerodrume, Bangalore-560064 (By Sri. R.M. Prakash) V/s	..…Appellant
Jayanth Balakrishna S/o. Late Justice H.C.Balakrishna, No.1362, 3rd Cross, Judicial layout, GKVK post, Bangalore-560065	……Respondent

O R D E R

 

Mr. KRISHNAMURTHY B. SANGANNAVAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 by OP Nos. 1 & 2, aggrieved by the order dated 06.04.2018 passed in C.C.No.593/2016 by the Bangalore Urban II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore (herein after referred as District Commission).

2. The brief facts of the case are: OP No. 1 is manufacturer of Kitchen Oven in the name and style of KAFF Kitchen Appliances branch and OP No.2 is franchiser having its retail showroom in the name and style of Caliber Kitchens at Bangalore and also doing retail business of other kitchen appliances of many companies at Bangalore.  The complainant has placed an order for amongst other items like an electrical cooking range quoted at Rs.82,760/-, at the time of placing the order the complainant paid through an account payee cheque drawn on Axis Bank, Yelahanka Branch, a sum of Rs.1,33,940/- dated 22.07.2015 for electric cooking range and other items.  Despite realisation of payment by Caliber Kitchens namely OP No.2 on 24.07.2015, electric cooking range is not delivered to him and he has made several phone calls, e-mails, enquiries with KAFF Bangalore Rural Manager and requested for refund of the amount, but, the amount of Rs.82,760/- paid towards electric cooking range not delivered.  Hence, he has raised consumer complaint for refund of said amount.  Since OP Nos. 1 & 2 have failed to participate in the complaint enquiry proceedings, the Commission below on 06.04.2018 proceeded to allow the complaint directing OPs to refund Rs.82,760/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of payment till the date of realisation and do pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. 
3. Thus, this order is now in appeal on the grounds that the forum below has failed to appreciate the facts in right perception.  The impugned order is arbitrary, perverse; legally untenable is liable to be set aside.  OP No. 1 is manufacturer of kitchen oven having its head office at Gurugram, having its zonal office at Bangalore represented by one Mr. Ajay Kapoor.  OP No. 2 has not brought these things to the knowledge of OP No. 1 and OP No. 1 has no knowledge about filing of this case.  He has not received any notice.  Therefore, there was no opportunity to file his version and defend his case.  In complaint, complainant has not stated Rs.82,760/- has been paid towards supply of kitchen oven which is manufactured by OP No. 1.  The said amount could have been received by OP No. 2 towards his own business transaction for other products which not belongs to OP No.1.  If complainant has paid Rs. 1,33,940/- through cheque dated 22.07.2015 to OP No.2, which could not be considered as Rs.82,760/- was paid to OP No.1.  In such circumstances, question of unfair trade or deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 does not arise at all and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
4. The Commission heard on the appeal and gone through   the papers available with the appeal and the impugned order passed by the Commission below.  Now the Commission has to examine whether impugned order could be maintained in this appeal or required to be interfered for the grounds set out by the appellants/OP Nos. 1 & 2 in this appeal ?.
5. At the very outset, Commission to make mention that the Commission below while allowing the complaint directed OP Nos.1 & 2 to refund the amount of Rs.82,760/- along with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of payment till date of realisation and do pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.  In other words, the Commission below held liability to pay such amount is joint and several.  It is therefore in our opinion if according to OP No.1/ appellant No.2 being the franchiser also doing business of other products which does not belong to OP No.1, is  his internal business transactions, since, OP No.2 is a franchiser selling the products manufactured by OP No.1 and if Rs.82,760/- was not received by OP No.1 has to take task of OP No.2/franchiser and settle the dispute at their level itself for which complainant cannot be held responsible that he has not paid such amount to him.  It has to be noted herein that this appeal is not filed by OP No.1 alone, but, filed by OP Nos.1 & 2, which would establish their business relationship is still cordial or good.
6.  In the above such circumstances, the contention of appellants that appellant No.1 has no knowledge about filing of the case, since neither appellant No.2 nor the complainant has brought to his notice about this transaction, is unacceptable,   since, OP No.2 is none other  the franchiser to sell their products has also joined along with OP No.1 to file this appeal. 
7. If we examine the enquiry records, thereby   found, appeal came to be filed only after complainant proceeded for execution of the award order. In fact he filed Execution Petition No. 62/2018 ,wherein notified the notice to Ops through a news paper the Hindu   dated 07.01.2019, by then 120 days have been lapsed after passing impugned order.  Since, OP No. 2 and complainant are from Bangalore City and OP No.2 is doing business under the name and style Caliber Kitchen, it is not that OP No.2 is not the franchiser of OP No.1. 
8. In the above such circumstances, we are of the view  remanding of the matter to the Commission below to hold an enquiry afresh would certainly put complainant to cause hardship and injustice.  As already stated above if at all OP No.2 has failed to part with amount in question paid by complainant to OP No.1 for purchase of KAFF  have to resolve inter-se since, complainant is nothing to do with their inter-se business transaction.  Admittedly, OP No.2 is a franchiser and to that effect the Commission below has rightly appreciated quotation, photographs of retail showroom, copy of en-cashed cheque drawn on Axis Bank showing full payment and copy of e-mails marked as document No. 1 to 7. 
9. In such conclusion, we are of the view on any of the grounds set out by OP Nos. 1 & 2 in this appeal, impugned order dated 06.04.2018 could not be interfered in the appeal. Accordingly, we proceed to dismiss the appeal by confirming the impugned order dated 06.04.2018 passed by Bangalore Urban II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in C.C.No.593/2016 with costs of Rs.5,000/- payable by appellant Nos.1 & 2 to respondent / complainant.
10. Amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to the concerned Commission below.

 

Sd/-

JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Sd/-

MEMBER

CV*