RAMA DEVI KUMAR Vs. M BHARAT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision has been filed by Smt. Rama Devi Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioner') against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressed Commission, Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') which rejected her appeal on grounds of limitation since it was filed with a delay of 348 days as well as on merits.

(2.) The factual matrix leading to the filing of the complaint before the District Forum by one M. Bharat Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the 'Respondent') is that he had entered into a franchisee agreement with Creative Health Links Pvt. Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as 'HMO') which is a health maintenance organization through the Petitioner who was its authorized signatory for a total fee of Rs. 2lakhs out of which Respondent paid Rs. 1 lakh. When the Petitioner did not entrust any work to the Respondent as agreed, Respondent demanded back the money paid by him. Petitioner thereafter gave a cheque of Rs. 1 lakh to the Respondent. However, when Respondent presented the said cheque to the bank it was dishonored with an endorsement "funds insufficient" on 15.5.1998. Respondent, therefore, approached the Petitioner a second time and he was again issued a cheque with the assurance that it would be cleared. However, even this cheque was returned on 16.7.1998 with the memo "payment stopped by the drawer". Respondent therefore, issued a legal notice to the Petitioner and since no response was received, he filed a complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijay Wada which is still pending. Respondent continued to approach the Petitioner requesting for refund of the entire deposit amount with interest and finally with some difficulty on 04.12.2003, Petitioner issued him a cheque drawn for a amount of Rs. 2,13,150/- which was dishonored by Canara Bank because of insufficient funds in that account. The Petitioner, therefore, approached the District Forum on grounds of unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service.

(3.) The Petitioner on the other hand, has totally denied the allegations made against her and stated that she was no longer an authorized representative of HMO as she had submitted her resignation on 28.07.1998 to the Managing Director of the Company and this was accepted. It was in fact one Gurjeet Singh a Director of the HMO who appointed the Respondent as a franchisee for Guntur and Khammam districts for a consideration of Rs. 2 lakhs but the Respondent had paid only Rs. 1 lakh. Further, the Respondent had misrepresented that he was an educated unemployed person when in fact he was a businessman and was, therefore, not a consumer. In any case, there was no deficiency of service on the part of the Petitioner.