DHANAK KUMAR Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT has challenged the order passed by District Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, in Consumer Complaint No.233/2007, dated 27.05.2009. Appellant has been directed to refund Rs.9,200/ - to the respondent with 9% interest per annum from the date of complaint which was filed on 08.08.2007 till its realization. This amount has been ordered to be paid within 30 days after receipt of copy of order. In addition to this, appellant has been burdened with cost of litigation of Rs.2,000/ -.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for appellant, Ms. Neelam Kaplas submitted that accepting everything alleged in complaint to be correct against her client for the sake of argument only, the dispute if any did not fall within the ambit of the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As according to her respondent alleges to have been purchased a buffalo for Rs.9,200/ - which was held out in pregnant and due for delivery after one month of its purchase. Whereas, situation was otherwise according to respondent. Having realized that he was defrauded and mislead by appellant, buffalo was returned by the respondent to the former. But sale consideration of Rs.9,200/ - was not returned by appellant, this resulted in filing of Consumer Complaint No.233/2007 alleging deficiency in service on the part of appellant.

(3.) COMPLAINT was contested by appellant, as according to him it was not maintainable, respondent had not come to the Forum with clean hands, and the Forum lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. Respondent was not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, complaint was liable to be dismissed. Sale of buffalo to the respondent by the appellant was specifically denied.