ALCHEMY BIOTECH PVT. LTD. 3, AND 4 IIND FLOOR, D BLOCK, DOSHI GARDEN SHOPPING MALL, ARCAT ROAD, VADAPALANI, CHENNAI Vs. M/S. MAHALAKSHMI PAINTS G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this First Appeal, under Sec. 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), the Opposite Party in the Complaint under the Act calls in question the legality and correctness of the order dated 30.01.2015, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Jaipur (for short "the State Commission") in Complaint Case No. 05/2011. By the impugned order, while allowing the Complaint, preferred by the Respondent/Complainant, the State Commission has directed the Appellant to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.9,85,000.00, received by it towards machine and raw material, along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the Complaint, i.e. 31.01.2011, besides paying a sum of Rs.5,00,000.00 as compensation for mental agony etc. as well as litigation costs.

(2.) Allured by the advertisements got published in the National newspapers by the Appellant, on 01.04.2008, the Complainant entered into an agreement with it and also made a total payment of Rs.9,85,000.00 to it for license to sell paints. In order to commence the trade, besides issuing advertisements, involving expenditure of Rs.2,00,000, the Complainant had also purchased a plot of 1000 sq. yard and arranged for electricity/water connections, labour at large scale etc., for which it had to spend a sum of Rs.8,00,000.00. After starting the trade, when the Complainant supplied the paints, manufactured with the raw material/machines provided by the Appellant, the same was returned to it by the shopkeepers with the complaints made by the customers. Due to the same, the Complainant suffered loss and issued a registered letter to the Appellant in the matter on 18.01.2010, demanding indemnification of the loss suffered. However, neither the Appellant gave any response to the same nor made good the loss suffered. Then, the Complainant got issued a legal notice to the Appellant on 14.01.2011 but of no avail. In the said background, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant and the resultant loss suffered by it, the aforesaid Complaint, praying for appropriate reliefs, came to be filed before the State Commission.

(3.) Despite service of notice, including by publication, there was no representation on behalf of the Appellant before the State Commission. Hence, the State Commission proceeded to dispose of the Complaint in its absence.