GLOBAL LIVING STYLE Vs. BASANTI KUMARI SHADANGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition has been filed under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the Impugned Order dtd. 11/11/2020 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Odisha (hereinafter referred to as State Commission) in First Appeal No. 2 of 2019, whereby the State Commission had dismissed the Appeal filed by M/s. Global Living Style (hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioner/Opposite Party') by affirming the Order dtd. 26/10/2018 passed in Complaint No. 33 of 2016 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ganjam (for short "the District Forum") vide which the District Forum had partly allowed the Complaint and directed the Petitioner/Opposite Party to replace the non-woven bag machine with the maximum capacity of producing 700 mm length and 450 mm width or in alternative to pay the cost of the non-woven bag machine alongwith Rs.25,000.00 towards compensation for mental agony together with Rs.5,000.00 towards cost of the litigation to the Complainant within two months from the date of receipt of the Order.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as stated in the Complaint are that as the State Government banned use of polythene in the State, Basanti Kumari Shadangi (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant), an unemployed graduate, being desirous of starting one production unit in the name of "Sobha and Sweta Enterprises" of non-woven bags, approached the M/s. Global Living Style, Opposite Party/Petitioner herein, to supply the non-woven bags machine for production of bags of 22 inches. The Opposite Party/Petitioner herein, supplied the invoice. The Complainant deposited Rs.7,65,000.00 with the Petitioner and the Petitioner dispatched non-woven bag making machine alongwith voltage stabilizer and regulator together with external electrification accessories for installation of the machine. The Complainant paid a total sum of Rs.9,42,120.00 for the said machine and other accessories besides a sum of Rs.4,63,000.00 towards transformer and Rs.40,000.00 towards the cost of raw materials. It is the say of the Complainant that when the production of non-woven bags started, there was production of 16 inches bags instead of 22 inches as assured by the Petitioner herein. The Complainant raised complaints with the Opposite Party/Petitioner herein and requested for replacement of the machine but finding no response from the Opposite Party/Petitioner herein, the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party / Petitioner herein.

(3.) The Opposite Party/Petitioner herein contested the Complaint before the District Forum by filing written version in which preliminary objections were taken that the Complaint is not maintainable as the cause of action has arisen in Hyderabad, therefore, the District Forum Ganjam at Berhampur, has no jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint; the Complainant has purchased the machinery for business purpose, therefore, the Complainant did not fall within the definition of 'consumer' and the Complaint should be dismissed. It was further submitted that the Complainant has placed the order for non-woven bags machine 450 model, which was supplied alongwith other material including electrical accessories after due demonstration to the Complainant. It was further submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their part and it was prayed that the Complaint be dismissed.