LOTUS TEXTILES Vs. NIRMAL ROADWAYS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts in nutshell can be stated as follows :

(2.) FROM the records produced by both the parties, we find that there is a dispute between the complainant and his agent by name Kosal Textile Agency. It appears that for the commission due towards him the said agent Kosal had received the consignment from the opposite party and appropriated the same towards the amounts due to him by way of commission from the complainant. The lower Forum after referring to the document has stated that it is not a consumer dispute and there appears to be a dispute between the complainant and his agent regarding the commission payable by the complainant to the agent and that certain correspondence had passed between the parties in that regard. The lower Forum has further observed that the complainant has not produced any documents to show that the complainant has paid the commission due to the opposite party. It also appears that whenever any order is obtained by the agent at his instance, the agent used to hand over the consignment to the consignee or the person placing the order and after raising proceeds from them used to deduct commission due to him out of the same and pay the balance to the complainant. According to the lower Forum, this is evident from the records produced by both the parties and the fact that certain cheques were sent by the agent to the complainant fortifies it. Therefore, rightly the lower Forum held that in that context and when such a specific case has been pleaded by the opposite party, the complainant ought to have impleaded the said agent as party to the complainant and he has failed to do so and, therefore, in the absence of the said party, it will not be appropriate to decide the dispute. The lower Forum has also come to the conclusion that the complainant has not produced the account book to show how the amount sent by cheque by the said agent was dealt in the accounts. Therefore, in that context, the lower Forum held that as there are some materials to show that there is a dispute between the complainant and his agent and in that background of dispute, the consignment in question in this complaint have been dealt with it will not be proper to decide the same in this complaint more so in the absence of the said person namely the agent by name Kosal. Therefore, the remedy of the complainant is to only file a regular suit wherein alone all these questions can be gone into and decided. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we feel that the view taken by the lower Forum cannot be faulted with. The materials on record definitely show that there is some dispute between the complainant and his agent. The transaction in question has something to do with the said dispute. It is not something different. The complaint is with reference to the failure of the opposite party in handing over the consignment to the complainant. The opposite party would say that for the amounts due to him by his agent, the agent had taken delivery of the goods, sold the goods and after appropriating his commission has sent the balance to the complainant by way of cheques. Therefore, the contention raised by the opposite party is a fall out of the dispute between the complainant and his agent and thus these disputes are inter -connected. When the disputes are inter -connected and when that party is not before the Forum, rightly the lower Forum held that no decision can be arrived at in the absence of that party and, therefore, considering the nature of dispute and the facts that have to be decided in such a dispute, it is appropriate for the complainant to approach a Civil Forum. Therefore, we accept the conclusion of the lower Forum. We do not find any reason to take a different view.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , this appeal is dismissed confirming the order passed by the lower Forum. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.