TRIO ELEVATORS COMPANY (INDIA) LTD Vs. TANSINGH CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/opposite party against the order dated 09.01.2013 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Jodhpur (in short, 'the State Commission ') in Appeal No. 243 of 2011 - Manager, Trio Elevators Co. (India) Ltd. Vs. Tan Singh Chauhan by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside and matter was remanded back to learned District Forum to decide after taking evidence.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/respondent is possessing Hotel Kalinga Palace at Barmer. As per agreement with OP/petitioner, petitioner was to install 3 elevators of the capacity of 8 persons, whereas OP installed elevators of the capacity of 5 persons, which too are not working properly. It was further alleged that on account of delay in completion of work, complainant has suffered loss of Rs.10 lakhs. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum and prayed for grant of Rs.10 lakhs as compensation for mental agony and direction to OP to install elevators of the capacity of 8 persons. OP resisted claim and submitted that proper elevators were installed of the capacity of 8 persons and further submitted that agreement between the parties was of commercial nature and District Forum has no jurisdiction and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to replace 3 elevators of the capacity of 8 persons instead of 5 persons. Appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order, but as learned State Commission remanded for disposing the matter after recording evidence; this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as transaction was of commercial nature and complainant did not fall within the purview of consumer under the C.P. Act, District Forum had no jurisdiction to deal with the complaint. It was further argued that there was no occasion for remand of the matter by learned State Commission, as parties had already placed evidence on record, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and complaint be dismissed. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.