GANGARAM SINHA Vs. SWAROOP CHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , is directed against the order dated 17.9.2002 in Complaint No. 17/2002 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called the District Forum for short), dismissing the complaint of the complainant/appellant.

(2.) ACCORDING to the complainant the opposite party/respondent is a Commission Agent and purchases grains and rice and makes payment of the price thereof to the seller, after deducting his commission. It was further averred that on 28.11.1997 the complainant sold 35 quintals of paddy at the rate of Rs. 425/ - per quintal for a total amount of Rs. 14,800/ - to the opposite party/respondent. The respondent paid Rs. 800/ - towards part payment of price and agreed to pay balance of Rs. 14,000/ - later on. The respondent also executed and gave a document to that effect to the complainant/appellant. The respondent however did not pay the balance amount to the complainant as was agreed between the parties. The complainant, therefore, sent a registered notice dated 24.12.2001 to the respondent, but without any result. Hence complaint was lodged before the District Forum.

(3.) THE complaint was resisted by the opposite party/respondent. He admitted in his written version that he is a Commission Agent and that he acts as intermediary and obtains commission from the seller. The respondent has further admitted that complainant/appellant has sold paddy on 28.11.1997 as has been averred by him. Further according to the opposite parties he himself did not purchase the paddy, but had brought the purchaser in contact with the complainant. He has averred that the complainant after paying the amount of commission to him (respondent) had gone away. However, the complainant later complained to the respondent that the purchaser did not pay the complainant, price of the paddy and sought the help of the respondent in realising the said amount from the purchaser. However, as per his averments, the respondent declined the request as above by the complainant, as it was being asked for belatedly. It was, therefore, averred by the opposite party/respondent that he was not liable to pay any amount to the complainant.