Circuit Bench Nagpur

StateCommission

A/17/84

Shree Computer Forms Pvt Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Patel Repairing Centre - Opp.Party(s)

ADV. S.S.MURTHY

09 Dec 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MAHARASHTRA NAGPUR CIRCUIT BENCH
NAGPUR
 
First Appeal No. A/17/84
( Date of Filing : 22 Mar 2017 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 12/01/2012 in Case No. CC/48/2011 of District Nagpur)
 
1. Shree Computer Forms Pvt Ltd
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR, SHRI. KAMAL S/O NARAYANDAS SARDA, U-88, HINGNA ROAD, NAGPUR
NAGPUR
MAHARASHTRA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. M/s. Patel Repairing Centre
THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR KALMEGH NAGAR, TRACTOR COMPANY SQUARE, HINGNA ROAD, NAGPUR
NAGPUR
MAHARASHTRA
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. U.S. THAKARE PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. D.R.SHIRSAO JUDICIAL MEMBER
 
For the Appellant:
Advocate Mr.S.S.Murthy.
 
For the Respondent:
None
 
Dated : 09 Dec 2019
Final Order / Judgement

PER MRS.U.S.THAKARE, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER.

1)    Being aggrieved by the order passed by Additional District Consumer Forum Nagpur in consumer complaint No/48/2011 dated 12/01/2012, original complainant Shree Computer Forms Private Company has filed present appeal. By the impugned order the learned District Forum was pleased to dispose of consumer complaint. During discussion the learned Additional District Consumer Forum observed that the consumer complaint is not clear. The District Consumer Forum can not reach to final conclusion, therefore the learned District Forum arrived at the conclusion that the complainant should ask for relief from Civil Court and disposed of the consumer complaint.

2)      Facts giving rise to present appeal in short are as under :-

3)      The complainant had filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act against the opponent by alleging deficiency in service. The appellant/complainant is the private Ltd.Company. It runs of factory to prepare papers for computer. It is submitted that for running machinery at factory AC and DC electric motors are required. Motor is required to be sent for repairy in case of  any problem/fault operating or running the machinery. The opponent does the job of repairing electric motors under the name M/s.Patel Repairing Centre. On 03/08/2009 the D.C. electric motor bearing No.98100840/26, 15 H.P. Kirloskar make had some problem. It was not working, therefore opponent was called upon to inspect the stock electric motor. The Proprietor of opponent/Patel Repairing Centre visited the company of the complainant. He inspected the motor and informed that it is necessary to test the motor in workshop of opponent. The complainant consented to carry his electric motor to repairing Centre of the opponent. One Motiram removed the machines and carried electric motor to repair Centre for repairy on 03/08/2009. Accordingly entry was taken in the outward register of the complainant. Said entry was signed by person namely Motiram. The complainant made enquiry about the repairy of electric motor of and on. But electric motor was not repaired. Electric motor was not returned to the complainant. Ultimately, on 21/12/2010 complainant sent Ganesh Malewar and Arvind Channe to the repairing Centre of the opponent. They saw electric motor of the complainant at repairing Centre of the opponent. They demanded back electric motor, but evasive answer was given. The complainant is running his factory with the help of additional motor. Inspite of several phone calls and messages through employee, electric motor of the complainant was not repaired. The complainant suffered mental pain and agony. Ultimately notice was sent to the opponent but of no use. Therefore the complainant had filed consumer complaint before the learned District Forum and requested to direct the opponent to return electric motor of Kirloskar company of 15 H.P. (D.C.Motor No.81008400) to the complainant after repairy. Alternatively the complainant has requested to direct the opponent to pay cost of machinery/electric motor with interest @ 18% p.a. Complainant has claimed amount of Rs.3,000/- towards compensation for mental pain and agony. 

4)      Opponent/Patel Repairing Centre resisted the claim by filing  written statement and denied all adverse allegations. It is submitted that the complainant had prepared false delivery chalan  and filed false complaint. The person namely Motiram so also person namely Purushottam do not work at his repairing centre. The opponent has requested to dismiss the consumer complaint with cost of Rs.25,000/-

5)      Both the parties have led evidence by filing affidavits. The complainant has filed copy of outward register, copy of notice, postal documents to substantiate his claim. After considering the evidence on record, the learned District Forum arrived at the conclusion that the complainant should claim relief from the Civil Court.

6)      Being dissatisfied with this order, original complainant is before us in this appeal.

7)      Heard learned counsel Shri Murthi for the appellant/ complainant. No one appeared on behalf of respondent.

8)      The Learned District Forum did not give any satisfactory explanation as to why the consumer complaint can not be decided by the Forum. The learned District Forum should have given proper reasoning for not deciding the consumer complaint by the District Forum. It is not the case that complicated questions of law and facts are involved in case in hand. It appears that the complainant is computer forms Pvt.Ltd.Co. It is not considered by the learned District Forum whether the complainant falls within the definition of consumer as incorporated under Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The consumer complaint is filed under benevolent legislation. If certain facts were not clear, the learned District Forum could have directed to both parties to enlighten on certain facts by necessary and reliable evidence. Certain documents are filed by the complainant/ appellant, but those documents were not considered and not discussed. The order passed by the learned District Forum is illegal and incorrect. The order requires to be set aside. It is necessary to decide the matter on merits. It is fit case to be remanded back to the learned District Forum for decision on merit. With this view we pass the following order. 

// ORDER //

  1. Appeal No.A/17/84 is hereby allowed.
  2. Order passed by the learned Additional District Consumer Forum in consumer complaint No.48/2011 on 12/01/2012 is hereby set aside.
  3. Consumer complaint is remanded back to Additional District Consumer Disputes Redresal Forum Nagpur for   decision on merit.
  4. Both the parties are directed to remain present before the Additions District Consumer Forum, Nagpur on  08/01/2020.
  5. Both the parties are permitted to file additional evidence  and documents if they want before the learned Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur.
  6. The learned Additional District Consumer Forum,  Nagpur is hereby directed to dispose of old consumer complaint as early as possible within a period of  four months from the date of appearance of parties before the Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur.
  7. No order as to cost.
  8. Copy of this order be supplied to both parties free of

             cost.   

 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. U.S. THAKARE]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. D.R.SHIRSAO]
JUDICIAL MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.