PRASHANT NAG Vs. ORIENT CERAMICS AND INDUSTRIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 23.11.2010 of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (in short, "the State Commission") in appeals no. 29 and 54 of 2010 filed by the present petitioner and the respondent respectively. By this order, the State Commission held that the appellant/complainant had not been able to establish that he was a "consumer" of any "service" rendered by the respondent/opposite party (OP) and hence, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and also set aside the order dated 17.12.2009 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (in short, "the District Forum").

(2.) The District Forum had allowed the complaint of the petitioner/ complainant and directed the respondent to refund to the petitioner/complainant the security deposit of Rs. 2 lakh and balance amount of Rs. 1,12,030/- and also pay him Rs. 700/- by way of cost.

(3.) I have heard Mr. R. K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the petitioner. The main point urged by Mr. Bhawnani is that the "seller" (respondent/OP) had arbitrarily terminated the dealership of the "buyer" (petitioner/complainant) also also withheld the latter's security deposit. By not refunding these amounts due to the petitioner/ complainant, the respondent/OP had committed an unfair trade practice as defined in section 2 (1) (r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act").