Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/501/2017

R.S.Agarwal Founder and Executive Chairman EMAMI LIMITED - Complainant(s)

Versus

Parasram Bairwa s/o Ram Lal Bairwa - Opp.Party(s)

Prateek Kasiliwal

21 Aug 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 501/2017

 

Sh.R.S.Agarwal Founder & Executive Chairman, Emami Ltd. regd.office at Emami Tower, 687, Anandpur EM Byepass, Kolkatta. West Bengal.

Vs.

Parasram Bairwa s/o Ramlal Bairwa r/o village Bagadiya Post Gothara Tehsil Sapotara Distt. Karauli Rajasthan.

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 502/2017

 

Sh.R.S.Agarwal Founder & Executive Chairman, Emami Ltd. regd.office at Emami Tower, 687, Anandpur EM Byepass, Kolkatta. West Bengal.

Vs.

Bhupendra Kumar Sen s/o Ghanshyam Sen r/o 142 Swami Basti, Kanti Chandra Road, Bani Park, Jaipur.

 

Date of Order 21.8.2017

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

2

 

Mr. Rakesh Tajawania counsel for the appellants

Mr. Rajendra Vijay counsel for respondents

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

Both these appeals are preferred against the similar order hence are decided by this common order.

 

The appeals are filed with delay of 356 days. Application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act is filed with the contention that the appellants were not made party in the impugned complaint and only after receiving the notice u/s 27 of the C.P.Act, they could know about the impugned order hence, the delay be condoned. Further application has been filed for granting leave to appeal with the contention that earlier the complaint was filed against SBS Biotech and the appellants are the assignee of the SBS Biotech as he was not party in the original complaint no opportunity to defence is allowed to him hence the matter may be remanded back and the opportunity of hearing should be allowed to him.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that

3

 

 

impugned purchase was made on 13 & 14 October 2015 and as per assignment deed the appellants are the assignee of SBS Biotech since 12^th June 2015 and further more the original complaints were filed in February/ March 2015. Hence on the day of filing of the complaint the appellants were assignee and responsible for the quality of the product and it was the duty of the appellants to contest the matter which they have not chosen to do. Hence, there is no reason to condone the delay or allow them to contest the appeal.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that the appellants are the assignee of the SBS Biotech and assignment deed states the effective date is 12^th June 2015 and admittedly the product has been purchased by the consumers after the date of assignment. Inspite of this on the product sold there is nothing to show that the product is of the appellant's company. Per contra the cover of the product represents it as Dr. Juneja's Ayurvedic Medicinal Oil and further more vide assignment deed right, title, interest

 

4

 

and liabilities were assigned to the appellant. It was the duty of the appellants to defend the matter before the Forum below but the appellants have not chosen to implead themselves as party in the original complaint. The contention of the appellants that they were not made party is fruitless as already observed that on the product nothing has been shown that this is the product of the appellant's company or they have assignee of the SBS Biotech and further when SBS Biotech was non-applicant in the complaint appellant assignee of the company falls in the foot stop of assignor and could not have any independent status. In the present appeal even respondent no. 1 & 2 in the complaint has not been made party and appeal suffers from non-joinder of necessary party. In view of the above facts the appellant has no locus standi to contest this appeal as he has not chosen to appear before the Forum below and he wants to play second inning in the garb of deed of assignment which was executed much prior to the filing of the complaint.

 

Hence, in view of the above the appeals deserve to be dismissed. No contentions have been raised by the appellants on merit of the case. The contention of the respondent is that inspite of use of the oil they could not get the assured results

 

5

 

and the Forum below has rightly ordered for compensation.

 

Both the appeals are dismissed.

(Nisha Gupta) President

nm