BALIGA FISHNETS Vs. SAJIDA DAWOOD HODEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Appeal No. A/15/04 dated 06.04.2016.

(2.) The Complainant is a resident of village Karla, Rajivada, Ratnagiri and was earning her livelihood by fishing. Her husband approached the Appellant/Opposite Party for supply of 1081 kg. nylon net at a cost of Rs.4,18,465/-. The Complainant obtained loan for the same from State Bank of India. The Petitioner/Opposite Party received the consideration amount and delivered the fishing net by railway parcel at Ratnagiri. Respondent/Complainant found that the fishing net was defective. The knots of the net were loose and the mesh aperture also was not of proper size, due to which her fishing work came to an end. The Complainant immediately informed the Opposite Party about the defect. The Complainant, at the behest of the Opposite Party, sent a portion of the net to look into the defect and another one also for processing. Despite efforts made by the Complainant, the problem was not solved and since fishing activity was suspended, she could not repay her loan installments to the Bank. Having failed to give the proper response to the notice a Consumer Complaint was filed before the District Forum with following prayer: -

(3.) The Opposite Party contested the Complaint by filing written version and denying all the allegations made by the Complainant. Issues of maintainability and territorial jurisdiction were raised, apart from denying any manufacturing defect. The report of Central Institute of Fisheries Technology, Cochin was also put forth, which it was contended, did not find any manufacturing defect. After consideration of the arguments advanced by both the parties, the District Forum partly allowed the Complaint. It directed as follows: -