MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1473 OF 2008 Date of filing : 21/11/2008

IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.515/2008 Date of order : 30/11/2009

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : MUMBAI SUBURBAN


Mr.Lal Nathirlal Aswani

Lal Mahal, 3rd floor, Kopri

Thane (E) 400 603 ……Appellant/org.complainant

V/s.

1. M/s.Gigatech Private Ltd.

10A, Bonny Plaza, 1st floor

S.V.Road, Andheri(W) 400 058

2. Mr.Sunil Choyi Meecheri

R/o.301/B, Eden II, Hiranandani Gardens

Powai, Mumbai 400 076

3. Mr.Sheelbhadra Shyam Kachwaha

R/o.Flat no.101, 1st floor

Sameer Co-op.Housing Society Ltd.

Versova, Andheri(W)

4. Mr.Sunil Ramchandra Mishra

R/o.D/115, 1st floor

Mansarovar apartment

Achole Road, Nallasopara (E)

Dist.Thane 401 209 ……Respondents/org.O.Ps

Corum: Mr.P.N.Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

Smt.S.P.Lale, Hon’ble Member

Present: Mr.Vaibhav Karnik-Advocate for the appellant.

: ORAL ORDER:

Per Smt.S.P.Lale, Hon’ble Member

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17/10/2008 passed by District Consumer Forum, Mumbai Suburban in consumer complaint no.515/2008, whereby Forum below rejected the complaint of the complainant. Complainant had booked two laptops for his personal use by paying cash of Rs.1,50,000/- to the O.P. O.P. agreed to hand over delivery of the said laptops within 20 days. It is alleged by the complainant that O.P. failed to supply and deliver the said laptops to the complainant within said agreed period of 20 days. Therefore, O.P. issued a cheque of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant. It is further stated by the complainant that said cheque of Rs.1,50,000/- was dischonoured by the bank for want of sufficient funds. Therefore, complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Consumer Forum for deficiency in service. However, said complaint was rejected at the admission stage on 17/10/2008 on the ground of maintainability. Being aggrieved by the said order, complainant has preferred the present appeal.

2. Heard Mr.Vaibhav Karnik-Advocate for the appellant. Perused copy of the order, memo of appeal and the documents placed on record. Respondent was to supply two laptops by accepting Rs.1,50,000/- within a period of 20 days. On failing to supply said laptops, respondent had agreed to return the said amount to the appellant. However, respondent failed to supply laptops to the appellant and, therefore, issued a cheque of Rs.1,50,000/- to the appellant. Said cheque of Rs.1,50,000/- was bounced for want of sufficient funds. Therefore, appellant should have filed criminal complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and not a complaint before the Forum below under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Appellant is not a “consumer” under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. There is no relationship between the appellant as a “consumer” and respondent as “service provider” as transaction had not taken place. Therefore, order passed by the Forum below is just, proper and sustainable in law. Appeal is devoid of any merits and liable to be dismissed. In the result, we pass following order:-

ORDER

Appeal stands dismissed.

Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.