Case nº Revision Petition No. 2137 of 2008 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, May 06, 2014 (case Asia Art Printers Vs K.P. Dharmaian)
| Judge | For Appellant: Kanwal Chaudhary, Advocate and For Respondents: K. George Chacko, Advocate |
| President | D.K. Jain, J. (President), Vineeta Rai and Vinay Kumar, Members |
| Resolution Date | May 06, 2014 |
| Issuing Organization | National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
Vineeta Rai, Member
-
This revision petition has been filed by Mr. Shahid, Petitioner herein and opposite party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, ISBT, Delhi (for short "the District Forum") being aggrieved by the order of the For a below, which in their concurrent findings have allowed the complaint filed against him by Mr. K.P. Dharmaian, Respondent herein and Complainant before the District Forum. In his complaint before the District Forum, Respondent/Complainant, who is a registered exporter of handicraft items, contended that on receipt of an order from a foreign buyer for supply of 50,000 notebooks, he contacted opposite party/Mr. Shahid of M/s. Asia Art Printers. After approving a sample shown by the opposite party and on his agreeing to manufacture the said notebooks by a stipulated date, he placed an order in writing for the same and also paid him an advance amount of Rs. 4,40,000. Petitioner/opposite party, however, failed to supply the notebooks by the stipulated date for delivery and requested for a further period of two weeks, which was agreed to. However, despite this assurance, the required notebooks were not supplied, leading to cancellation of the order by the foreign buyer and consequently resulting in loss to the Respondent/Complainant. Respondent/Complainant therefore, sent a legal notice to the Petitioner/opposite party seeking recovery of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 4,40,000 along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of receipt of the said amount upto the date of recovery. On not receiving a response, Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum and requested for refund of the amount paid by him along with interest @ 18% per annum.
-
Petitioner/opposite party on being served admitted placement of the order for 50,000 notebooks by Respondent/Complainant and advance payment of Rs. 4,40,000 in instalments. However, he vehemently controverted the allegation that the notebooks as per the approved sample were not ready by the stipulated date and stated that it was because of a problem between the Respondent/Complainant and the foreign buyer that the order was cancelled, which in fact had caused loss to him.
-
The District Forum, after hearing the parties and on the basis of evidence filed before it, allowed the complaint. It directed the Petitioner/opposite party to pay the Respondent/Complainant a sum of Rs. 4,40,000 along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of receipt of each instalment till the date of payment and also Rs. 1,000 as litigation expenses.
-
Aggrieved by this order, Petitioner/opposite party filed an appeal before the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State Commission"), in which he reiterated that the notebooks were ready on time and had also been inspected and approved by an agent of the foreign buyer and that it was the Respondent/Complainant who did not accept/left...
To continue reading
Request your trial