MONTO MOTORS LTD. Vs. SAI MOTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against impugned order dated 26-10-2006 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No.2106 of 2005 M/s Monto Motors Ltd. Vs. M/s Sri Sai Motors & Ors. by which while dismissing the appeal, order of the District Forum allowing the complaint was upheld.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent no. 1, proprietor of Respondent No. 1, being an unemployed person wanted to start his own business for earning his livelihood. As per advertisement of petitioner/O.P. No. 1, respondent no. 1 was appointed authorised dealer of the petitioner on 17-09-2002 and in pursuance to agreement, respondent no. 1 deposited Rs. 2 lakhs as security amount with the petitioner/O.P. No. 1 and respondent no. 1 opened his showroom in Bellary. Opposite party no. 2/respondent no. 2 being authorised distributor of opposite party no. 1 supplied 24 vehicles to the complainant/respondent no. 1. Complainant cleared all dues payable to opposite party no. 2 but opposite party no. 2 had not given the sales commission and discount to the complainant as agreed between the parties. Complainant requested for refund of security amount, but amount was not refunded. Alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite parties, complainant filed complaint before District Forum with a prayer for refund of security deposit of Rs. 2 lakhs along with interest and other expenses. Opposite party no. 1 submitted written statement and alleged that complainant does not fall within the ambit of consumer under Consumer Protection Act as dispute is of commercial nature. It was further alleged that District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter and denied any deficiency on the part of the opposite party and prayed that complaint be dismissed. Opposite party no. 2 did not appear before District Forum and was proceeded ex-parte. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed opposite party no. 1 to refund Rs. 2 lakhs with 10% p.a. interest from the date of filing complaint till realisation and Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Respondents did not appear; hence they were proceeded ex-parte.