(Passed this on 06th November, 2017)
Shri. S.P. Muley, President –
1. This is a complaint of defective materials by the Opposite Party to the complainant.
2. The complainant is proprietary firm at Nagpur and is engaged in manufacturing concrete paver blocks and tiles. The O.P. is also a manufacturing firm, situated at Morbi, in Gujrat and manufactures plastic molds. The complainant for its business had purchased 1500 unipaver plastic molds for concrete paver blocks on 9/10/2015 at the cost of Rs.60/- per piece for total amount of Rs. 90,000/-. The goods were transported by the O.P. and delivered at the factory of the complainant at Nagpur on 19/10/2015. It is alleged the Unipaver Plastic Molds were substandard and defective and within 15 days all 1500 molds were broken and became unusable. The O.P. was accordingly informed and request was made for replacement. But no action was taken by the O.P. The complainant has therefore suffered losses to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- as it could not complete the order of supply of concrete paver blocks. Hence, the complainant is claiming the cost of the molds,Rs. 90,000/-, Rs. 2,00,000/- for loss in business and notice cost.
3. The O.P. filed reply and raised objections that the forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the transaction being purely commercial in nature, consumer complaint is not tenable. Admitting its business, it is also admitted that the complainant had agreed to purchase 1500 Unipaver Plastic Molds for Rs. 90,000/-. The order was placed by local agent of the complainant at Morbi, Gujrat. As per the order and invoice, the goods were delivered to the transporter at Morbi. It is denied the Molds were substandard or defective and the same were broken within 15 days of its normal use. The goods sold did not carry any warranty or guarantee. It is denied the O.P. can be held responsible for any loss suffered by the complainant. Thus denying the complaint and the reliefs claimed therein, it is submitted to dismiss the complaint.
4. None appeared for the complainant. Heard Learned counsel for the O.P. Perused documents.
5. Since the OP has taken preliminary objections as to jurisdiction of the forum and tenability of the complaint, we first decide these two issues.
6. It is submitted by the Ld. counsel for the O.P. that the entire transaction was done in Gujrat State and no cause has arisen within the jurisdiction of this forum. The territorial jurisdiction of the forum to entertain a consumer complaint depends on two factors, viz. place of residence or work or business of the O.P., or place where cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. In this case the work place O.P. is at Morbi, which is in Gujarat State. So on this count, this forum does not get jurisdiction. According to the O.P., the order was placed by local agent, Laxmanbhai Chavda of the complainant at Morbi and on his request the goods were delivered to the transporter at Morbi. This fact, however, is denied by the complainant in his rejoinder. It is averred that the goods were delivered at Nagpur by the O.P. We have perused documents like bill, invoice, and goods forwarding note placed on record by the parties but do not find any iota of evidence in support of the contention of lack of jurisdiction. Besides, as per the complainant the Molds were broken at its factory in Nagpur. So part of cause of action arose in Nagpur. Thus, except bare averments, the O.P. has produced nothing to show the goods were delivered to the local transporter. Therefore in absence of evidence of prima facie nature we are unable to accede to the contention regarding lack of jurisdiction.
7. Regarding nature of the transaction, it is contended that it was purely of commercial nature. The complainant has mentioned in the complaint that it is in business of manufacturing of paver blocks and tiles and for the purpose of business the molds were purchased from the O.P. In the Certificate of Registration also nature of business is mentioned as Manufacturer, Importer, Works Contractor. This shows the transaction was of commercial nature. The complainant itself is a manufacturing firm and the dispute is between two manufacturing firms regarding quality of goods. As such, the nature of dispute does not make out a consumer dispute and consequently, the complaint cannot be entertained as a consumer complaint.
8. For aforesaid reason it is not necessary to go into the other aspects of the case. The complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
- The complaint is dismissed.
- No order as to cost.
- Copy of the order be given to both the parties, free of cost.
