Compensation for Unfair trade practices in supply of LPG & supply of low quality floor tiles under consumer protection act.

 

Compensation for Unfair trade practices in supply of LPG & supply of low quality floor tiles under consumer protection act.

 

Auva Gas Agency through Paul Roluahpuia v. Consumer Union,

Vairengte South Branch, Mizoram 2014 SCC OnLine NCDRC 316

Facts: A written complaint from the Consumer Union, Vairengte South Branch Respondent herein, was submitted to the President, District Forum Kolasib District on 22nd August 2012 against M/s Auva Gas Agency, Vairengte-Petitioner. In support of their complaint, the Respondent/ Complainant furnished complaints which they had received in original from 42 aggrieved consumers. The following points were mentioned in the complaint.

(i)      Excessive rate for new connection of LPG;

(ii)     Non-issue of receipt by agency;

(iii)    Inferior goods supplied;

(iv)    Non gas lighter is supplied etc.

The District Forum vide its order dated 07.12.2012 allowed the complaint and gave the following order:

(i)      The Respondent M/s Auva Gas Agency, Vairengte should return a sum of Rs. 770/- to each existing customer on production of consumer card, for excessive price collected from them, within one month from the date of issue of judgment and order;

(ii)      The Respondent should pay a sum of Rs. 1960/ to the Complainants Consumer Union,Vairengte South Branch to cover the travelling expense of 14 persons at the rate of Rs. 140/- to and from Kolasib, within a month from the date of issue of Judgment and Order;

(iii)    The Respondent should, issue receipts to all

their customers at the time of giving a new connection and for any other transaction with the customers;

(iv) The Respondent shall repair defective materials supplied by them free of cost or exchange with new ones. They should also ensure that the materials supplied are of good quality. (quality

assured) etc. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Petitioner/Appellant filed an appeal before the State Commission. Along with the appeal a miscellaneous application for condonation of delay was filed where it was dismissed.

Issue: Whether State Commission was justified in dismissing the appeal?

Decision: NCDRC held that there is no justification to carry out any modification in the order passed by the state commission in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. The present revision petition was dismissed and it was further stated that the OP must ensure that gas refills are supplied to Complainant as per the norms at regular intervals. Also the deputy commissioner and DFSC, Amritsar are directed to ensure that there is regular

supply of gas refills to consumers without fail and in the event of any lapse on the part of Petitioner (OP), suitable action should be taken by civil administration with the rules and regulations on the subject.

 

Supply of low-quality floor tiles

 

Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. v. H and R Johnson

(India) Ltd. and Ors AIR 2016 SC 3572.

 

Facts: On 02.02.2000, the Complainant Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel purchased vitrified glazed floor tiles from the local agent of the H and R Johnson (India) Ltd. for a sum of Rs. 4,69,579/-. The said tiles, after its fixation in the premises of the Complainant, gradually developed black and white spots. The Complainant wrote several letters to the sales executive of the company, informing about the inferior and defective quality of the

tiles. Thereafter, the local agent visited the spot but failed to solve the issue. An architect J.M. Vimawala was appointed by the Complainant to assess the damage caused due to defective tiles. The architect assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 4,27,712.37/- which included price of the tiles, labour charges, and transportation charges. Thereafter, the Complainant served a legal

notice dated 12.08.2002 to the company making a demand of the said amount but no response was shown by the company. The said inaction on the part of the company made the Complainant to file a Consumer Complaint against the company before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Surat for claim of the said amount. The District Forum allowed the complaint

and held that the tiles supplied by the company had manufacturing defect. The District Forum by holding the company, local agent and sales executive jointly and severally liable, directed them to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint

till its recovery within a period of 30 days from the date of order of the District Forum. Aggrieved by the decision, the opposite party appealed to the Gujarat State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad.

The State Commission dismissed the Appeal of the Opposite Party and confirmed the order passed by the District Forum. Thereafter, the Respondents filed a revision petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission questioning the validity and correctness of the order passed by the District Forum and the State Commission. On 12.03.2012 the Complainant also made an application in revision petition to the National Commission for invoking the powers under Sections 14(d) and 14(hb) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and for awarding sufficient amount of compensation in addition to amount already awarded by the District Forum.

On appeal, the National Commission reversed the findings of the District Forum and the State Commission holding that the Complainant is a commercial entity and hence not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)d of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Issue: Whether a society registered under the Societies Registration Act a charitable institution or a commercial entity?

Decision: The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the National

Commission has exceeded its jurisdiction in exercising its revisional power under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the State Commission in First Appeal wherein the finding of fact recorded by the District Forum was affirmed. The facts of the instant case clearly reveal that the National Commission has erred in observing that the Appellant Society is a commercial

establishment by completely ignoring the Memorandum of Association and byelaws of the Appellant-Society. Both the District Forum as well as the State Commission has rightly held that the Appellant Society is a charitable institution and not a commercial entity. The impugned order of the National Commission was hereby set aside and the order of the District Forum which

was affirmed by the State Commission was restored.