1997 (11) TMI 421 - Commission - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
2. Non-receipt of unit certificates leading to financial loss.
3. Appellants' defense of lack of awareness and opportunity to clarify.
4. Challenge to District Forum's order and applicability of consumer protection laws.
5. Appellants' demonstration of efforts in despatching certificates and lack of negligence.
6. Entitlement to compensation for alleged loss and reliance on relevant judgments.

Analysis:
The judgment involves an appeal against an order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum concerning the non-receipt of unit certificates, resulting in financial loss. The complainant sought damages and compensation, which the District Forum awarded, holding the appellants responsible for the loss. The appellants argued that they were unaware of the proceedings and were not given a chance to clarify. They also challenged the District Forum's order, citing the enormous volume of work involved in despatching certificates and the care taken in the process. They contended that the complainant could not be considered a consumer under the law, referring to relevant judgments to support their stance.

The Commission, after considering the arguments and evidence presented, found merit in the appellants' contentions. They acknowledged the efforts made by the appellants in despatching the certificates and the care taken in the process. The Commission disagreed with the District Forum's view of negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. They noted the condition of the returned envelopes and absolved the appellants of fault in this regard. Consequently, the Commission held that the appellants were not guilty of negligence or deficiency in service, leading to the setting aside of the District Forum's order.

Furthermore, the Commission agreed with the appellants' demonstration that the respondent was not entitled to compensation for the alleged loss. They referenced judgments from the National Commission and C.D.R.F., Guntur, which supported the appellants' position. Based on the discussions and findings, the appeal was allowed, the District Forum's order was set aside, and the original complaint was dismissed with no order as to costs. The judgment highlights the importance of considering the efforts and circumstances of the parties involved in consumer disputes to determine liability and entitlement to compensation effectively.