REKHA GUPTA Petitioner/complainant had filed a consumer complaint no. 156 of 2009 against the respondent for not complying with the terms of stockistship agreement between the petitioner and the respondents. The brief facts of the case as per the petitioner are as follows: 2. The first respondent is a Ghaziabad based Private Limited Company. It is engaged in producing Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG); perishable processed food consumable items like Fruit Jams, Chocolates, Corn Flakes, Ketchups, Namkeens, Snacks, Jams, Pickles, Sauces, Peanuts, Corn Flakes, Puffs, Candies and many other food products under the Brand name UM This processed food business had been started in the year 2008. 3. The first respondent is a recently established company, and for marketing its above (processed food) products/ items, it wanted stockists all over India. The other respondents are respondent no. 1 Company Director or top officials with the responsibility of decision making for it and running its day to-day operations, they personally oversee these matters. 3. The petitioner an ITI Certificate holder, was till recently, unemployed, and in the year 2008 he started a small and modest sized business (Krishna Agency Padubidri) exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood with the financial assistance from the Corporation Bank. In the said business, the petitioner was actively engaging himself and the income therefrom was his sole source of livelihood. As the income was inadequate, the petitioner was looking for other avenues. 4. Sometime before September of last year, the petitioner came to know that the respondent was looking for stockists for its products in this part of Karnataka, therefore, he contacted the company Bangalore based representative/Sales Officer one Suresh and its Hubli based representative, one Ravi Kukar and in September 2008 both of them met the petitioner at Padubidri. After detailed discussions, the petitioner agreed to become the uper Stockistfor the respondents product for the two districts of South Canara and Udupi in Karnataka State. 5. Accordingly, in October 2008, upon approval by the respondent Company CEO and respondent nos. 2 to 5, the respondent company confirmed the petitioner appointment as such Super Stockist vide letter (Memorandum of Agreement) dated 06.10.2008. 6. The following are the important terms of the Stockistship: (i) The petitioner was to keep adequate stock of the products; (ii) Payment for such stock had to be made in advance; (iii) The company Hyderabad Unit would be applying the products upon receiving the advance payment. (iv) Orders for the products were to be secured/ canvassed by the respondent company field/ marketing representatives and the petitioner was only to keep adequate stock and dispatch the products as per the orders so secured/canvassed. 7. Subsequently, in October and December last year, against the petitioner two advance payments of Rs.1,25,000/- and Rs.40,000/- the Hyderabad unit of the respondent supplied two consignments to the petitioner vide its Tax Invoices nos. 17, 18 & 19 all dated 16.10.2008 and the Tax invoice no. 046 dated 28.12.2008. 8. However, the respondent field/ marketing staff/ representatives could secure/ canvass only ten indents/ orders for a total amount of Rs.42,607/- during the two month period between November 2008 and January this year. 9. Apart from the above ten orders for a total amount of Rs.42,607/- no order has been secured by the respondent representatives, as a result, the products have been lying unsold with the complainant. 10. As the shelf-life of the products was short, they had to be sold/ lifted, and absence of any order was causing grave concern to the petitioner. He therefore, contacted the respondent above representatives. Ravi Kiran and Suresh urging them to secure orders but both of them did not do anything; there was no explanation from them as to why they were not securing orders. Therefore, the petitioner appraised the respondents at its Corporate Office of the unhelpful attitude of their field/marketing staff and the unexpected developments and the hardship and financial loss he was suffering as a consequence and sought their intervention to ensure that immediate steps were taken to lift/ clear the stock before it became unfit for consumption and so nsaleable All of them expressed surprise at the petitioner complaint and assured the immediate action to secure orders. Respondent nos. 3 to 5 specifically assured that if, for any reasons, orders could not be secured, then that were the company would arrange to lift the stock and divert it to some of its other super stockists by making the payment due to the petitioner. 11. However, the said respondents contrary to their assurances did not do anything. Petitioner repeated requests and reminders over phone etc., proved ineffective are all concerned were indifferent. Consequently, the stock continued and to this day continues to lie in the petitioner godown. 12. The situation was grave and getting worse by the day because many items had already perished and become unfit for consumption and other items were perishing shortly and likewise become unfit for consumption, and the petitioner continued to be put to substantial financial loss as the payment made by him for the stock was from the Bank loan and he was not able to keep up his commitments to his Bankers. 13. In the circumstances, the petitioner sought the assistance of Balakedarara Vedike, Udupi a GOI recognised NGO helping consumers and on his behalf it addressed a letter dated 26.04.2009 to the respondent with a request to immediately depute any of its representative to lift/ dispose of the stock held by the complainant by paying the amounts due to him on that account and also to adequately compensate him for all the suffering and the financial loss he has been subjected to. In the said letter, it was pointed out that the petitioner was ready for an amicable settlement and such a settlement should be possible upon discussions. 14. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Udupi (in short, he District Forum vide their order dated 29.03.2010 issued notices to the respondents which were returned unclaimed, hence, respondents were proceeded ex parte. The District Forum came to the conclusion that the Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction as the respondents had no Branch Office within the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum, Moreover, the cause of action as pleaded by the petitioner arose on 06.10.2008 at Padubidri was not supported by the memorandum of agreement. In absence of evidence for cause of action we are unable to adjudicate the matter in view of the above ruling. Hence, it directed as under: The complaint is dismissed. The complainant may file the complaint before the appropriate forum to seek remedy. The exemption under Article 14 of the Limitation Act is available to the complainant to approach appropriate Forum within the time frame. 15. The petitioner thereafter sent an appeal no. 2600 of 2010 to the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, he State Commission by post which was received by the State Commission on 29.06.2010, against the order passed by the District Forum on 29.03.2010. The order sheet of the State Commission reads as follows: ppeal received on 29.06.2010 through post. This is an appeal under section 15 of C P Act, preferred against the orders passed by the District Consumer Forum, Udupi on 29.03.2010 in complaint no. 156 of 2009. Placed before the Commission on 16.07.2010 at 11.00 A M, Order dated 29.03.2010 Delay (62 days) Remarks :- No original certified copy of the impugned order and only one set of documents furnished. 16.07.2010 Appeal received by post. Therefore, issue notice to the petitioner Call on 30.08.2010 30.08.2010 Notice issued to the petitioner. Served called out absent Nobody to represent call on 29.09.2010 finally. 29.09.2010 Petitioner called out absent It is seen that the petitioner submitted this appeal through post, in spite of service of notice he did not appear either in person or through counsel. Therefore, we feel that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting his case. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution 16. The order regarding dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution was sent to the petitioner on 26.10.2010. 17. Thereafter the petitioner sent a Miscellaneous Petition no. 107 of 2010 for restoration to the State Commission which was received on 13.12.2010. The order sheet reads as follows: iscellaneous petition received on 13.12.2010 through post. This is a miscellaneous petition preferred against the orders passed by the Karnataka State Commission on 29.09.2010 in appeal no. 2600 of 2010. Placed before the Commission on 04.011.2011 at 11. A M. Impugned order free copy dated 26.10.2010 Delay (18 days). 04.01.2011 Issue notice to the petitioner call on 04.02.2011 04.02.2011 Notice issued to petitioner is duly served. Called out absent. None represent on behalf of petitioner. It appears that the petitioner is not interested to prosecute the case. Hence, this petition is dismissed for non-prosecution 18. The order regarding dismissal of the miscellaneous petition no. 107 of 2010 was conveyed on 22.02.2011 to the petitioner. 19. Thereafter the petitioner on 05.12.2011 sent a revision petition by post to the National Commission which was received on 12.12.2011. In the present revision petition it is nowhere mentioned that which order is being impugned. 20. The revision petition was listed before the Registrar of the National Commission on 16.09.2011. The proceedings of the same are reproduced below: he petition has been filed defective for want of certified copy of the order of the State Commission, in four sets, copy of the order dated 29.03.2010 passed by the District Forum as well as copy of the complaint, etc. A letter has been received from the petitioner Krishna M Rao. Since the petitioner has filed only one set of petition, and in reply to the letter of this Commission, to remove the defects, the petitioner has stated that defects pointed out by the Registry are varied and large in number, hence, he requires considerable time, he being a lay person and having no knowledge of law, and therefore, requests for two month time to remove the defects. Prayer granted. Registry to send copy of today proceedings to the petitioner to enable him to remove the defects before the next date. List the matter on 14.12.2011, before the Bench for admission hearing 21. Thereafter the matter was againlisted on 14.12.2011. The proceedings are as under: n 16.09.2011 a direction was issued to the petitioner to remove defects. The position is where it was on the last date. One more opportunity is afforded to the petitioner to do the needful within three weeks failing which the petition will be listed before the Honle Bench for appropriate directions. Let a copy of this proceedings be sent to the petitioner and the counsel individually within three days. List before the Registrar on 06.03.2012 22. On 6th March 2012 the matter was again listed before the Registrar. The proceedings were as under: s per the office note, neither the certified copy of the State Commission order has been filed nor is any one present on behalf of the petitioner today. List the petition before the bench for admission hearing on 15th May 2012. Send a copy of the proceedings to the petitioner to get the date noted for admission hearing 23. Thereafter, the matter was listed before the Bench on 27th August 2012. ide its order, this Commission issued notice to the petitioner to submit his arguments in writing as well as a copy of his memorandum of appeal before the State Commission, returnable on 02.11.2012. He was also directed to file an application for condonation of delay 24. On 02.11.2012 the petitioner sent an application for adjournment of the matter dated 20.10.2012. 25. We have carefully examined the documents sent by the petitioner. The defects pointed out by the Registry have not yet been corrected. There is a delay of 32 days in filing the revision petition no.2217 of 2011 before the National Commission. Petitioner has also not filed the application for condonation of delay. In his communication to this Commission dated 17.04.2012, he has merely recorded as follows, hat there has been some delay in making this petition which is not deliberate, hence, this may be condoned 26. He has also sought exemption of his personal appearance before this Commission during the hearing of the revision petition on the following grounds: aving regard to the distance factor and the disproportionately huge expenditure involved in undertaking journeys to and from Delhi and also in engaging a counsel to represent me in the revision petition and more importantly, in view of the fact that the issued involved are very simple and straight forward (State Commission consistent non-application of mind to and failure to consider submissions made and the question whether the cause of action had or had not arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum), it would be disproportionate to require me to be personally present or be represented by a Counsel during the hearings. It should be possible (as it was for the State Commission) for the Commission to make a decision only on the basis of records without my personal presence or the assistance of a counsel 27. From the above-mentioned facts, we cannot, but come to the conclusion that the petitioner has been extremely negligent and casual in pursuing his case and he has been only sending communication by post. The District Forum had dismissed his case by giving him exemption under Article 14 of the Limitation Act to approach the appropriate forum within the time frame, instead, he filed an appeal before the State Commission. He never appeared before the State Commission in appeal no. 2600 of 2010 nor in the Miscellaneous Petition no. 107 of 2010. The revision petition filed before the National Commission also suffers from defects which he has not yet corrected. 28. No grounds have been given for condoning the delay of 32 days. Further, the orders of this Commission have not been complied with. 29. In the above-mentioned circumstances, the revision petition is dismissed with no cost.