BABA GROUP ENTERPRISES Vs. DINESH PRAMANIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision, challenges is to the order dated 31.1.2008 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal, Kolkata dismissing appeal against the order dated 11.4.2007 of a District Forum whereby petitioners were directed to pay amount of Rs. 78,000 towards the cost of saplings and Rs. 2,000 as cost to the respondent.

(2.) ALLURED by the advertisement inserted at the instance of petitioner No.2/opposite party No.2 in Anand Bazar Patrika on 8.11.2005, 22.11.2005 and 7.1.2006 the respondent/complainant approached petitioner No.1/opposite party No.1 and paid advance of Rs. 1,000 and entered into an agreement on 17.2.2006 with the petitioners. Respondent thereafter paid Rs. 14,000 on 22.2.2006 towards cost of 3,000 nos. of saplings to the petitioners. It was undertaken by the petitioners that they will buy -back the saplings @ Rs.17 per sapling when it become 12'' in size. Petitioners supplied another 6,000 saplings to the respondent and cost thereof was to be adjusted from the sale proceeds @ Rs.5 per sapling. It was alleged that when the saplings became 12'' in size the respondent approached the petitioners to take delivery thereof but they refused to buy back the same. Complaint was thereafter filed by the respondents claiming certain amount which was contested by the petitioners by filing written version. Plea taken in written version was of total denial. It was alleged that few persons of the locality compelled the petitioners to sign the blank papers by force. Complaint was disposed of by the District Forum in the manner noticed above and the appeal field against that order was dismissed by the order under challenge by the State Commission.

(3.) SUBMISSION advanced by Shri S.K. Ghosh for the petitioners is that it being a case of breach of contract, the complaint itself was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Fora below for cogent reasons have disbelieved the stand of total denial taken by the petitioners and have accepted the version of the respondent that petitioners had agreed to buy -back the saplings @ Rs.17 per sapling on their becoming 12'' in size. Obviously, the respondent had purchased the saplings on condition of their buying back at the said rate from the petitioners. Buy -back facility was the service and deficiency in the shape of refusal to buy -back has given rise to the filing of complaint. Complaint is thus maintainable under the said Act. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by Fora below calling for interference in revisional jurisdictional under Section 21(b) of the Act. Revision is, therefore, dismissed.