BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED: 19.06.2024

PRESENT

Mr.K.B SANGANNANAVAR  :       JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mrs. DIVYASHREE M :      LADY MEMBER

APPEAL NO. 1601/2018

ORDER

Delivered by Mr.K.B.Sangannanavar. Prl.DJ (R) Judicial Member.

01.   This is an Appeal filed by the complainant in CC No.1028/2017 on the file of IV Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore, aggrieved by the order dated: 10.09.2018.

02.   The Commission examined the grounds of Appeal, Impugned order, Appeal papers and heard.

03.   Now the point that arise for consideration of this Commission would be:

“Whether the impugned order dated: 10.09.2018 passed in CC No.1028/2017 does call for any interference of this Commission for the grounds set up in the Appeal Memo?”

04.   At the very outset, we have to make mention of the fact that, complainant had raised a consumer complaint against opposite parties to replace the toner-cartridge-drum-unit damaged by them with original brother printer toner-cartridge drum unit which is in their illegal possession, to pay Rs.5,40,000/- as compensation towards for all the loss of earning by time loss and unnecessary and unproductive task of waiting for a solution and failure to obtain such solution despite repeated follow up and legally valid reminders, unwarranted defamation, uncalled for litigation, unwarranted tiff with governmental wing, mental shock, pain and suffering, loss of expectation of solution, hardship, discomfort frustration and mental stress, caused to the complainant by the OP for more than five months till deciding to approach the Forum.

05.   According to the complainant, he is a Consumer under opposite parties and eking his livelihood by working at IT Consultant and Technological Publisher and imparting training to professional and other Government departments and in publication of books and having his home office.  The opposite party Nos.1 & 1(a) have placed Ex-parte.  Opposite party No.2 M/s. Cartridge World Franchisee Unit contested the complaint contending that, Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  In view of rival contentions of the respective parties, the District Forum held, there are instances where when the toner is refilled and put to the printer, the powder might spill out from the drum in a negligible quantity due to the rotation of the drum.  And in para-8 as the complainant has made serious allegations against opposite parties in respect of the sub-standard toner being manufactured by the Ops which can be seen ongoing through the contents of Para-20 of the complaint.  Further by referring paragraph 20, 25 & 33 followed by the judgment delivered I (1993) CPJ 88 (NC) in the case of N. Shivaji Rao Vs. M/s. Daman Motor Company & Others, wherein held “It is evident from above that, it is not a case of supply of defective goods or of deficiency in rendering service.  Prima facie it is a case of fraud and cheating as alleged by the appellant – complainant himself.  Consequently, the factum of fraud and cheating would have to be established first before a consumer forum can arrive at a finding of deficiency of service.”  Further relied on I (1996) CPJ 283 in a case between Dr. Sudhir G Rao Vs. Kokila & Others, wherein held that, “as per the averments made in the complaint, the case set up by the complainant is of fraud regarding which no investigation can be done by the Redressal forums”.  Further relied on the decision of this Commission in Appeal No.1109/2011 dated: 02.08.2012 in the case of M/s. Praveen Gift Centre Vs. Smt. Jyothi Jain, wherein held, “admittedly the complainant/respondent has purchased four mobile handsets from the appellant/OP in all for Rs.94,150/- on 07.11.2009.  Admittedly, the invoices were raised in the name of Mr. Sandeep.  If at all, the respondent was unaware of Mr. Sandeep she should not have accepted the bills.  Moreover, both the parties agrees that, the respondent has purchased the mobile sets in the name of third person.  That means it creates a doubt that the complainant/respondent has purchased 4 mobile handsets for commercial purpose and not for her own use.  It is not the case of the respondent that the mobile handsets which were purchased by her are suffering from any manufacturing defects.  The only grievance is that, the OP/appellant has duped and cheated her.  If at all, there is fraud and cheating played by the appellant as alleged by the respondent/complainant for which she is at liberty to approach appropriate Court for relief.  Thus the DF looking in to the relief at para-38(b) held complaint is not maintainable with an observation giving option to the complainant to get redress his remedy before the competent Court of Law having jurisdiction to try the same. 

06.   We have examined the contents of complaint, cause of action, relief sought for, version of OP No.2 and the findings recorded by the District Forum, thereby found that, the complaint raised before the District Forum by the Complainant is perfectly well within the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum. In other words such complaint is maintainable, since relief sought by the complainant is to replace the toner-cartridge-drum-unit damaged by them with original brother printer toner-cartridge drum unit which is in their illegal possession.  In our view though complainant, while narrating his case  has alleged against opposite parties that they have committed fraud or cheating which has to be perceive from the angle of a customer by reading the complaint as a whole and not in isolation. Even for   complaint like case on hand   Forum cannot   drive a complainant   to approach Civil Court. We have gone through the Citations which the District Forum has relied on to arrive at a negative findings on the complaint were decided on different facts and circumstances, it is therefore the Hon’ble Apex Court of India  in the case between, Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute, II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC)   clarified that, the case has to be decided by appreciating the materials on record and not in isolation. 

07.   In the above such conclusion we are of the view  the findings recorded by the District Forum holding complaint as not maintainable before District Forum is held not only contrary to the facts but also law  is liable to be set aside.  Accordingly, we proceed to allow the Appeal. Consequently set aside the order dated: 10.09.2018 passed in CC No.1028/2017 by the IV Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore Urban District and as a result direct the District Forum to re-admit CC No.1028/2017 and decide the case afresh on merits  affording opportunity to both parities as early as possible not later than three months from the date of receipt of the order.

08.   Provide certified copy of this order to the District Commission as well  to the parties to the Appeal.

            Sd/-                                                        Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                             JUDICIAL MEMBER  

KNMP*