State Consumer Disputes Redressal CommissionM/S. Freak 40 vs Mr. Bhavesh Zaveri on 11 June, 2013Daily Order
  







 



 
   
   
   


   
     
     
     

BEFORE THE
    HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL 
    
   
    
     
     

COMMISSION,  MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
    
   
  
  
   

 
  
 
  
   
   

 
  
 
  
   
   
     
     
     
       
       
       

First Appeal
      No. FA/13/104
      
     
      
       
       

(Arisen out
      of Order Dated 10/04/2013 in Case No. CC/334/2012 of District Pune)
      
     
    
     

 
    
   
    
     
     

 
    
   
    
     
     
       
       
       
         
         
         

M/S. FREAK 40 
         

THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES 
         

1. MR. SIDDARTH BABAN PENKAR 
         

2. MR. HARSHAL GULABRAO PATIL 
        
       
        
         
         

OFFICE AT 81/520, GANGANAGAR, 
         

SANT TUKARAM NAGAR, PIMPRI, 
         

PUNE-411018
        
       
      
       

 
      
       
       

...........Appellant(s)
      
     
      
       
       

  
      
       
       

  
      
     
      
       
       

Versus
      
       
       

  
      
     
      
       
       
         
         
         

MR. BHAVESH ZAVERI 
         

( AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF ) 
         

M/S. STAR CREATIONS
        
       
        
         
         

OFFICE AT 385, NARAYAN PETH, 
         

CHANDRASHOBHA APARTMENTS, 
         

101, FIRST FLOOR, 
         

PUNE- 411 030
        
       
      
       

 
      
       
       

...........Respondent(s)
      
     
    
     

 
    
   
  
   

 
  
 
  
   
   

 
  
 
  
   
   
     
     
     

 BEFORE:
    
     
     

 
    
   
    
     
     

 
    
     
     

HON'BLE MR. S.R. Khanzode
    PRESIDING MEMBER
    
   
    
     
     

 
    
     
     

HON'BLE MR. S.B.Sawarkar
    MEMBER
    
   
  
   

 
  
 
  
   
   

 
  
 
  
   
   
     
     
     

 PRESENT:
    
     
     

Adv. Ashutosh Ranade for the Appellant 
    
   
    
     
     

 
    
     
     

  
    
   
  
   

 
  
 
  
   
   
     
     
     

 ORDERHeard
    Adv. Ashutosh Ranade on
    behalf of the Appellant.[2] This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 10/4/2013
    passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune (hereinafter
    referred to as 'the Forum' for the sake of brevity) in Consumer
    Complaint No.334 of 2012, M/s. Freek 40 Vs. Mr.
    Bhavesh Zaveri,
    Authorized representative of M/s. Star Creations. Consumer complaint stood dismissed on the
    ground that since it was a commercial transaction and the Complainant Firm
    is not a 'consumer'.Being aggrieved thereby the original Complainant preferred this
    appeal. It was an impugned order
    passed ex-parte where the Opponent remained
    absent.[3] Referring to the complaint itself, the opening sentence
    itself mentions that the Complainant is a registered partnership firm and
    Mr. Siddharth Baban Penker and Mr. Harshal Gulabrao Patil are its
    partners. Opponent is alleged to be
    a whole-seller of plain T-shirts and related fabric material and carrying
    on his business at Pune. Upon
    approving sample shown by the Opponent of the readymade garment, the
    Complainant placed an order with the Opponent for supply of 240 nos. plain
    T-shirt valued at `31,248/-. However,
    the Complainant complained that the goods supplied were not as per the
    specimen shown. They were not of
    proper size, stitching was improper and manually marked as well as the
    fabric material was also not good.Thus, the Complainant suffered a huge loss because of such defective
    goods supplied. The Complainant claimed
    refund of `31,248/-and thereafter, the Complainant filed this consumer complaint for the
    reimbursement of the said amount.[4] We find that goods were purchased by a retailer from the
    whole-seller for resale.Furthermore, per-se, it is a 'commercial
    transaction'. A registered
    partnership firm which represents its partners and is a trade-name of the
    parties and certainly that will not fall within the explanation toSection-2(1)(d)(ii)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter
    referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity) and,
    therefore, the Complainant cannot held to be a 'consumer'. Finding of the Forum on this point needs
    to be upheld. Furthermore, consumer
    complaint is filed not for replacement of the defective goods but claiming
    reimbursement of the amount stating that due to defective material the
    Complainant has suffered a huge loss.
    That cannot be a consumer complaint.Considering all these aspects we find that appeal is without any
    substance. We hold accordingly. Thus, the appeal is not admitted and
    stands rejected in limine. No order as to costs.Pronounced
    and dictated on 11th June, 2013 
    
   
  
   

 
  
 
  
   
   

 
  
 
  
   
   
     
     
     

 
    
   
    
     
     

[HON'BLE MR.S.R. Khanzode]
    
   
    
     
     

PRESIDING MEMBER
    
   
    
     
     

 
    
   
    
     
     

  
     

  
     

[HON'BLE MR. S.B.Sawarkar]
    
   
    
     
     

MEMBER
    
   
  
   

 
  
 


 

KVS