(मंचाचे निर्णयान्‍वये, श्री सादीक मो. झवेरी, सदस्‍य)
(पारीत दिनांक : 21 जुलै 2014)
तक्रारकर्त्‍याने सदर तक्रार, ग्राहक संरक्षण कायद्याचे कलम 12 अन्‍वये दाखल केली असून, तक्रारीचा आशय थोडक्‍यात येणे प्रमाणे.
1. अर्जदाराने गैरअर्जदाराकडून दिनांक 27.8.2010 ला डिजीटल मशीन Professional Digital Minilab - TDS 1836 घेण्‍याचा करार करुन, करार रक्‍कम रुपये 11,000/- दिली व खरेदीपञ तयार करुन गैरअर्जदारास दिले. करारनाम्‍यानुसार अर्जदाराने दि.4.9.2010 ला गैरअर्जदारास रुपये 40,000/- अॅडव्‍हान्‍स दिले. यानंतर अर्जदाराने बँकेकडून गैरअर्जदाराचा कोटेशन क्र.PIDL/QNT/SH/08-10/115 Dated 27.8.2010 प्रमाणे रुपये 15,00,000/- (रुपये पंधरा लाख) कर्ज घेऊन RTGS च्‍या माध्‍यमाने गैरअर्जदाराच्‍या आय.सी.आय.सी.आय. बँक, नोएडा ब्रॅन्‍च येथे ट्रान्‍सफर केले व गैरअर्जदाराकडून त्‍याची पावती दि.10.11.2010 ला मिळाली. तसेच दि.23.10.2010 ला देयक रुपये 11,73,000/- चा मिळाला. जेंव्‍हा की, अर्जदाराने रुपये 15,00,000/- चा भरणा केलेला होता. अर्जदाराला गैरअर्जदाराने मशीन लावल्‍यानंतर 3 वर्षाची वॉरंटी दिली होती. सदर मशीन ही डबल मॅक्‍झीन प्रिंट काढणारी होती, परंतु सदर मशीनमध्‍ये अप्‍पर मॅक्‍झीन मशीन लावल्‍यापासून काम करीत नव्‍हते. तसेच प्रिंटची गुणवत्‍ता ही चांगली येत नव्‍हती. अर्जदाराने याबाबत प्रथम तक्रार जुन 2011 मध्‍ये केली असून त्‍यानंतर दोन-तीन वेळा तक्रार केल्‍यावर अर्जदार स्‍वतः गैरअर्जदाराचा मॅनेजींग डायरेक्‍टर यांना चेन्‍नई येथे भेटून मशिनीच्‍या दोषाबाबत कळवीले होते. यानंतर त्‍यांचे मॅनेजर गडचिरोली येथे येवून सर्व दोष दुरुस्‍ती करणार असे सांगून सुध्‍दा तीन-चार महिन्‍यापर्यंत कोणीही आलेले नाही. त्‍यानंतर, एक इंजिनियर येवून दुरुस्‍त करण्‍याचा प्रयत्‍न केला, परंतु दोष दुरुस्‍त झाले नाही. आणखी एक महिन्‍यानंतर दुसरा इंजिनियर येवून मशीन दुरुस्‍त करण्‍याचा प्रयत्‍न केला असता सुध्‍दा मशिनीचा दोष दुरुस्‍त झाला नाही. त्‍यानंतर, अर्जदाराने, गैरअर्जदाराचे झोनल मॅनेजर अजय गांगुली यांना तक्रार केली असता, त्‍याने मशीन बदलवून देण्‍याचे आश्‍वासन दिले, परंतु तसे काहीही झाले नाही. अर्जदाराचे सदर मशीन दुरुस्‍तीकरीता रुपये 49,600/- खर्च झाले तरीही सदर मशीनमधील दोष दुरुस्‍त झाले नाही. त्‍यानंतर, वारंवार अर्जदाराने गैरअर्जदारास दुरध्‍वनीव्‍दारे तक्रार नोंदणी केली असता दि.9.4.2013 ला गैरअर्जदाराचे इंजिनियर श्री र‍वी भाटी यांनी अर्जदारास येवून मशिनीमध्‍ये असलेल्‍या दोषाबाबत अर्जदारास असे कळविले की, तुम्‍ही कंपनीला याबाबत कळवा. सदर मशिनीमध्‍ये असलेल्‍या दोषाबाबत अर्जदाराने कंपनीला कळवून सुध्‍दा गैरअर्जदाराने कसलीही दखल घेतली नाही. म्‍हणून अर्जदाराने दि.5.6.2013 वकीलामार्फत कायदेशिर नोटीस देवून मशिनचे पैसे 15 दिवसाचे आंत परत करण्‍याबाबत कळवीले. सदर नोटीसाचे गैरअर्जदाराकडून कसलेही उत्‍तर न मिळाल्‍यामुळे अर्जदाराने ही तक्रार या न्‍यायमंचात दाखल करुन अशी मागणी केली आहे की, गैरअर्जदाराने ग्राहक संरक्षण कायदा अंतर्गत न्‍युनता पूर्ण सेवा देवून अनुचीत व्‍यापार पध्‍दती अवलंबिली असल्‍यामुळे गैरअर्जदाराकडून, अर्जदाराने गैरअर्जदारास भरणा केलेली रक्‍कम रुपये 15,00,000/- परत मिळावे, तसेच रुपये 49,600/- मशिन दुरुस्‍तीकरीता झालेला खर्च व मानसिक ञासापोटी रुपये 2,00,000/- असे एकूण रुपये 17,49,600/- परत करण्‍याचा आदेश व्‍हावा.
2. अर्जदाराने नि.क्र.4 नुसार 13 झेरॉक्‍स दस्‍ताऐवज दाखल केले. अर्जदाराची तक्रार नोंदणी करुन गैरअर्जदारांविरुध्‍द नोटीस काढण्‍यात आले. गैरअर्जदारास नोटीस नि.क्र.7 (A) नुसार मिळून सुध्‍दा हजर झाले नाही म्‍हणून दि.24.4.2014 ला नि.क्र.1 वर प्रकरण गैरअर्जदाराविरुध्‍द एकतर्फा चालविण्‍याचा आदेश पारीत करण्‍यात आला.
3. अर्जदाराने नि.क्र.9 नुसार शपथपञ व नि.क्र.11 नुसार लेखी युक्‍तीवाद दाखल केला. अर्जदार यांनी दाखल केलेले लेखी बयान, दस्‍ताऐवज, शपथपञ, लेखी व तोंडी युक्‍तीवादावरुन या मंचाने खालील मुद्दे निघतात.
मुद्दे : निष्‍कर्ष
1) अर्जदार हा गैरअर्जदाराचा ग्राहक आहे काय ? : नाही.
2) अंतीम आदेश काय ? : अंतिम आदेशाप्रमाणे
- कारणे व निष्‍कर्ष –
मुद्दा क्रमांक 1 बाबत :-
4. अर्जदार हा सुभाष डिजीटल स्‍टुडीओ नावाने फोटो स्‍टुडीओचा व्‍यवसाय करीत आहे व आपला व्‍यवसाय वाढविण्‍यासाठी त्‍याने गैरअर्जदाराकडून मशीन घेतली असून त्‍या मशिनचा उपयोग करुन आपला व्‍यवसाय वाढविण्‍याचा प्रयत्‍न होता.
5. अर्जदाराने आपल्‍या तक्रारीसोबत असे कुठलेही दस्‍ताऐवज दाखल केलेले नाही की, ज्‍याने हे सिध्‍द होत असेल की अर्जदाराचा हा व्‍यवसाय स्‍वतःचे उदरनिर्वाहासाठी आहे व या व्‍यवसाया व्‍यतिरिक्‍त कोणतेही उपजिवीकेचे साधन नाही.
6. मा. राष्‍ट्रीय ग्राहक तक्रार निवारण आयोग, नवी दिल्‍ली यांनी, Revision Petition No. 3811/2007 Order Dated 9/7/2010, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. –Vs.- M/s. Diksha Enterprises , Delhi मध्‍ये दिलेल्‍या न्‍यायनिवाडया नुसार ..
This revision petition is by the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd., challenging the order dated 14th of August, 2007 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (State Commission for short), by which the State Commission, while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner, held that there was no legal infirmity in the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alwar (District Forum for short) directing the petitioner to allot the industrial plot at the original rate of Rs.440/- per sq. mt.
Admittedly, the respondent-complainant, which is a partnership firm, applied for the allotment of an industrial plot admeasuring 4000 sq. mtrs. in Chopanki, Bhiwadi for the purpose of establishing a factory for the manufacturing of S.O. Dyes on 29th of March, 2004.
Without going into the details and the dispute raised with regard to the rate of developmental charges, it may be stated that the petitioner has raised a point of law, contending that the allotment is related to the allocation of an industrial plot for setting up of a factory for the manufacturing of S.O. Dyes. Referring to the definition of a ‘consumer’ under section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that after the amendment of the Act during 2002, which came into effect from 15th of March, 2003, any person who hires or avails of any service for a consideration for commercial purpose would not fall within the definition of a ‘consumer’. The present case pertains to the allotment of an industrial plot for the purpose of setting up of a factory and, therefore, the learned counsel contends that the dispute is clearly outside the purview of the consumer fora.
Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant in response to this objection has submitted that the respondent-complainant is fully covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as amended, and is also covered by the definition of a ‘consumer’ as mentioned in the Act because the petitioner had malafidely, deliberately and in illegal manner cancelled the allotment of the plot in question after having received the deposit. He has referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled “HUDA Vs. Seema Handa” reported in Vol. IV (2004) CPJ 6 (SC) in support of his contention.
Since a preliminary objection has been raised on the point of law, it would be appropriate to first deal with this objection. Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, dealing with definitions, in sub-clause (d) defines a ‘consumer’ as under :-
“(d) "consumer" means any person who—
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who 'hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes;
Explanation.— For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment”
(emphasis added)
It is clear from this provision that after the Amendment Act 62 of 2002, which came into effect from 15th of March, 2003, any person who buys any goods or avails any service for a consideration, if it relates to a commercial purpose, except on the ground of earning his livelihood by means of self employment, would not fall within the definition of a ‘consumer’ and, therefore, any such dispute would not be a consumer dispute and the consumer fora would have no jurisdiction to entertain any complaint for such dispute.
In the case in hand, the respondent-complainant in his complaint states that he applied for an industrial plot of 4000 square meters for the purpose of setting of a factory for manufacturing S.O. Dyes. For proper adjudication of the matter, it is necessary to refer to the definition of ‘factory’, which as per section 2(m) of the Factories Act reads as under:-
“factory” means any premises including the precincts thereof
(i) ….
(ii) whereon twenty or more workers are working, or were working on any day of the preceding twelve months, and any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on without the aid of power, or is ordinarily so carried on.
Further, the ‘manufacturing process’ is defined under Section 2(k) of the Factories Act, which reads as under :-
(i) making, altering, repairing, ornamenting, finishing, packing, oiling, washing, cleaning, breaking up, demolishing or otherwise treating or adapting any article or substance with a view to its use, sale, transport, delivery or disposal, or …
(ii) …
(iii) …
(iv) …
(v) …”
A plain reading of these provisions make it clear that the intention of the respondent-complainant is far from earning any livelihood by self-employment but is purely intended to set up a manufacturing unit to earn profit. Thus, it is clear beyond any pale of doubt that the service obtained even for a consideration from the petitioner is for a commercial purpose and the dispute does not fall within the domain of consumer fora.
Insofar as the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of HUDA vs Seema Handa (supra) relied upon by the respondent-complainant is concerned, the dispute therein was with reference to the rate at which interest was to be charged and not whether allottee of an industrial plot for setting up of a factory was a ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Besides, even on that limited issue the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the concluding para 8 has stated that “We clarify that this Order shall not be taken as a precedent in any other matter …..”. Reliance of the respondent-complainant on this judgment is misplaced.
Since the respondent-complainant is not a consumer and the fora below could not have entertained the complaint, it is not necessary for us to consider the other aspects such as the rate of developmental charges and payment etc.
Under the circumstances, the revision petition is accepted and the complaint is dismissed, with no order as to cost. However, the respondent-complainant is left with the option to seek his remedy, if so advised, from the appropriate civil court.
7. मा. राष्‍ट्रीय ग्राहक तक्रार निवारण आयोग, नवी दिल्‍ली यांनी, M/s. Max Infra (India) Ltd. Rep. by its Chairman, Dr.M.S. Phani Kumar –Vs- 1. M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. and others 3, CC No.93/2014 Order Dated 22/5/2014 या प्रकरणात नमूद केले आहे की,
1. The present complaint has been filed by M/s. Max Infra (I) Ltd. against M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd, and its three employees. The key controversy swirls around the question, “Whether, the complainant is a consumer?”.
2. Paras 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 of the complaint are reproduced as follows :-
1. The complainant, Max Infra India Ltd. is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 in the year 1999 having its registered office at Plot Nos.319 and 320, East Avenue, Ayyappa Society, Madhapur, Hyderabad-500081, A.P. and engaged in construction works.
2. The Opposite Party No.1 is an Indian automobile manufacturing company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at No.1 Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600032. O.P. Nos.1 & 2 are the Managing Director and the Manager (Marketing) respectively of OP NO.1 whereas OP No.4 is the authorized dealer of the OP No.1.
3. The complainant company placed a Purchase Order dt.17.08.2011 on M/s Automotive Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. (OP NO.5) for the supply of 10 Tipper Vehicles manufactured by the Opposite Party at the unit price of Rs.24,74,176/- each, total being Rs.2,85,92,665/-.
A copy of the Purchase Order dt.17.08.2011 is annexed hereto as Document No.1.
4. That since the complainant company had taken finance from M/s Srei Equipment Financial Pvt. Ltd., a Master Operating Lease Agreement dt.20.08.2011 was entered into between the complainant company and the aforementioned M/s Srei Equipment Financial Pvt. Ltd.
A copy of the Mater Operating Lease Agreement dt.20.08.2011 between Max Infra (I) Ltd. and M/s Srei Equipment Financial Pvt. Ltd. is annexed hereto as Document No.2.
5. That upon delivery of the Tippers, M/s Automotive Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. raised invoices on various dates i.e. 27.08.2011, 29.08.2011, 06.09.2011 & 30.09.2011 in respect of the ten vehicles.
Copies of the invoices dt.28.08.2011, 29.08.2011, 06.09.2011 and 30.09.2011 are collectively annexed hereto as Document No.3.
3. The complainant has made the following prayers :-
(I) Direct the Opposite Parties to replace the ten defective Tipper Vehicles purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties under Purchase Order dt.17.08.2011, with new properly functional vehicles;
Or
In the alternative, refund the amount of
Rs.2,85,92,665/- paid by the complainant to the opposite parties, along with interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of the complaint till the payment;
(II) Direct the Opposite Parties to pay further compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards harassment, strain, loss of work and loss of valuable time undergone by the complainant company;
(III) Direct the Opposite Parties to pay further an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency of service;
(IV) Direct the Opposite Parties to pay the costs of Rs.30,000/-; and
(V) Pass any other/further order (s) as this Hon’ble Commission deems fit in the interest of justice.
4. We have heard the counsel for the complainant at length. He has cited authorities reported in Super Computer Centre Vs. Globiz Investment Pvt. Ltd., 3 (2006) CPJ 256 (NC) and Madan Kumar Singh (Dead) Through LR Vs. District Magistrate, Sultanpur & Ors, (2009) 9 SCC 79. In Madan Kumar Singh (Dead) (supra) it was held as under :-
16. A further reading of the aforesaid
definition of ‘consumer’ makes it clear that Parliament wanted to exclude from the scope of the definition the persons, who obtain goods for resale and also those who purchase goods with a view to use such goods for carrying on any activity for earning. The immediate purpose as distinct from the ultimate purpose of purchase, sale in the same form or after conversion and a direct nexus with profit or loss would be the determinants of the character of a transaction – whether it is for a ‘commercial purpose’ in economic activities in which they are engaged would be consumers as defined in the Act.
5. We are of the considered view that these authorities do not dovetail with the facts of this case. These authorities pertain to the Amendment Act 62 of 2002, of C.P. Act, 1986, which was brought in force, w.e.f. 15.03.2003. The earlier explanation was inserted by Act 50 of 1993. There was remarkable change in the definition of “consumer”. The definition of “consumer” as it stood at the time of filing of this complaint, on 02.04.2014, is as follows:-
d) ‘Consumer’ means any person, who :-
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been
paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) “hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose”.
[Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment;]
[EMPHASIS SUPPLIED]
6. This Commission in Monstera Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ardee Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. – IV (2010) CPJ 299 (NC)held:-
“Housing – Purchase of space for commercial purpose - There was delay in possession. Complainant was a private limited company. Complainant was nominated for allotment of showroom. Possession not given. Sale deed was not executed. Deficiency in service was alleged. It was held that even if private limited company was treated as ‘person’, purchase of space could not be for earning its livelihood. Purchase of ‘space’ was for commercial purpose”.
7. This Commission vide its order passed in the case of M/s Purusharth Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Uppal Housing Ltd. Plaza & Anr. dated 05.07.2012 observed in para 11, which is reproduced as follows:-
“11. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that these flats will be used for the officers of the Company. Learned counsel for the complainant could not deny that those officers would transact the commercial activity. A bare-look on this Resolution clearly goes to show that these flats would be meant for commercial purposes.”
8. Aggrieved by that order the complainant approached the Apex Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order-dated 07.01.2013 dismissed the Civil Appeal Nos. 8990-91 of 2012.
9. In another case, Shika Birla Vs. DLF Retailers Developers Ltd., Consumer Complaint No. 183 of 2012,decided by this Bench, on 01.02.2013, found that Shikha Birla was not a consumer. An SLP was filed before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5458 of 2013, passed a detailed order, observing as under :-
“This appeal filed is directed against order dt.01.02.2013 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, the ‘National Commission’) whereby the complaint filed by the appellant under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) was dismissed as not maintainable.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and carefully perused the record. The averments contained in paragraphs 2 (A), 2(G), 2(N), 2(Q) of the complaint and paragraphs 3 to 5 of affidavit filed by her sometime in October, 2012 clearly show that the complainant had taken the disputed site from Mr. Ashwani Bahl who, in turn, had purchased the site for business purpose. It was neither the pleaded case of the appellant nor any evidence was produced by her before the National Commission to show that she had taken the site for earning livelihood. The National Commission took cognizance of all the facts and observed:
“6. It is thus clear that the complainant is purchasing the said plot for commercial purpose. There is no pleading nor any evidence to show that the shop purchased by her is exclusively for the purpose of her livelihood, by means of self-employment.
7. It must be borne in mind that the complainant has already paid more than Rs.2.00 crores. The total cost of the shop is of about Rs.3.00 crores. The complainant is silent about her occupation. In her affidavit, in para nos.3, 4, 5 & 6, for the first time, she mentions:
“3. That the complainant had purchased the said commercial area being provided respondent for her end use with a view to open a showroom for interior designing in the said area.
4. The complainant is working as an Interior Designer in the firm which is owned by her father in law i.e. Mr. Malik Chand Birla and her husband i.e. Mr. Anurag Birla under the name and style of “M/s. Origin Overseas (Queen 10 the Home Affairs)”.
5. That with the view to provide a permanent place for the said boutique when the same was shut down in Hauz Khas, the complainant was forced to move to Gurgaon temporarily in the Grand Mall, GS – 122, thereafter the complainant decided to purchase the instant area for her usage.
6. xxx”.
10. In Kalpavruksha Charitable Trust Vs. Toshniwal Brothers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 3356, while placing reliance on Laxmi Engginering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, (1995) 3 SCC 583, the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to hold, as under :-
“6. It is, therefore, clear that in spite of the
commercial activity, whether a person would fall within the definition of “consumer” or not would be a question of fact in every case. The National Commission had already held on the basis of the evidence on record that the appellant was not a “consumer” as the machinery was installed for “commercial purpose”. We have been again referred to various documents, including the “project document”, submitted by the appellant itself to the Bank for a loan to enable it to purchase the machinery in question, but we could not persuade ourselves to take a different view.
9. In the instant case, what is to be considered is whether the appellant was a “consumer”, within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and whether the goods in question were obtained by him for “resale” or for any “commercial purpose”. It is the case of the appellant that every patient who is referred to the Diagnostic Centre of the appellant and who takes advantage of the CT Scan, etc., has to pay for it and the service rendered by the appellant is not free. It is also the case of the appellant that only ten percent of the patients are provided free service. That being so, the “goods” (“machinery”), which were obtained by the appellant, were being used for “commercial purpose”.
[Emphasis Supplied]
11. Thus the Complainant has made a vain attempt to make bricks without straw. It is not a consumer. The complaint is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. However, liberty is given to the complainant to approach the proper Forum/Civil Court for redressal of its grievances, as per Law.
8. सदर प्रकरणामध्‍ये सुध्‍दा अर्जदाराने त्‍याच्‍या फोटो स्‍टुडीओच्‍या व्‍यवसायासाठी गैरअर्जदाराकडून Commercial Purpose साठी मशिन खरेदी केली असून, अर्जदार व गैरअर्जदारामध्‍ये सदर व्‍यवहार हा व्‍यवसायाकरीता होता म्‍हणून अर्जदार कलम 2 (1) (d) (ii) ग्राहक संरक्षण कायदा 1986 प्रमाणे ग्राहक नाही असे सिध्‍द होते. सबब, मुद्दा क्र.1 हा नकारार्थी नोंदविण्‍यात येत आहे.
मुद्दा क्रमांक 2 बाबत :-
9. मुद्दा क्र.1 चे विवेचनावरुन व मा.राष्‍ट्रीय आयोगाचे न्‍यायनिवाड्यानुसार या मंचाचे मताप्रमाणे खालीलप्रमाणे आदेश पारीत करण्‍यात येत आहे.
- अंतिम आदेश -
(1) तक्रारदाराची तक्रार खारीज करण्‍यात येते.
(2) उभय पक्षांनी आपआपला खर्च सहन करावा.
(3) उभय पक्षांना आदेशाची प्रत विनामुल्‍य देण्‍यात यावी.
गडचिरोली.
दिनांक :- 21/7/2014
