ANKISH, LAXMI TOWERS Vs. DINESH SHANKAR TRIPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant booked a PCL computer with the petitioner on 21 -01 -1997, for a sum of Rs.29,995/ -. The aforesaid booking was made pursuant to an advertisement given by the manufacturer PCL Computers. Since the computer booked by the complainant was not delivered, he cancelled the order on 28 -05 -1997 and sought refund of the amount which he has deposited by way of a bank draft in the name of the PCL Computers. However, the amount deposited by him was not refunded. Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the Kanpur Nagar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short, the District Forum). The complaint was filed against the petitioner as well as the manufacturer PCL Computers through its Manager. The District Forum directed the opposite parties including the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.29,995/ - to the complainant along with interest on that amount at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from 26 -05 -1997. They were also directed to pay Rs.5,000/ - a cost to the complainant.

(2.) BEING aggrieved from the order of the District Forum the petitioner approached the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, the State Commission) by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 25 -01 -2006 the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant cannot be said to be a consumer of the petitioner since the booking was made pursuant to an advertisement issued by the manufacturer and the payment was also made by way of a demand draft in the name of the manufacturer. He also states that there was no deficiency on the part of the petitioner in providing services to the complainant since the draft received from the complainant was immediately forwarded to the manufacturer for the purpose of delivery of the computer to the complainant. I, however, find myself unable to accept the contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the booking was made pursuant to an advertisement issued by the manufacturer, it can hardly be disputed, in the facts and circumstances of the case, that the services of the petitioner were engaged for the purpose of making the said booking. Though, apparently, the complainant did not pay any consideration to the petitioner for rendering such a service that would not be material since the consideration must have come in the form of commission from the manufacturer. It would be pertinent to note here that this is not the case of the petitioner that he was acting gratuitously in accepting the booking for the computer and transmitting the pay order/draft received from the purchasers to the manufacturer.