REPLY OF RESPONDENT TO THE
COMPLAINT FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT [CD1] 
BEFORE THE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM....................
Case
No..................... of 19....................
C.
D............................................................ Complainant
versus
C.
F........................................... Respondent/Opp. Party
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
The Respondent company most
respectfully submits as under: —
Parawise
reply
1.
Para
1 of the complaint is admitted to the extent as is borne out from the
advertisement of respondent company.
2.
Para
2 of the complaint is wrong and denied. The respondent company respectfully
submits that it has not so far received any complaint from any of its
customers/users. The respondent company further submits that the product in
question is meant for repelling the mosquitoes, cockroaches, bedbugs, ticks and
houseflies. The word ‘repelling’ means to drive back, to force away,
discourage, to check, the advance of, to repulse, to create aversion or distate
in. (The Lexicon Webster Dictionary Vol. II1986 Edition). It is further
submitted that there is a method for repelling, that is, when the repelling is
done in a room, it has to be kept closed for atleast half an hour and only
thereafter the said room is to be used. The product, it is submitted, does not
contain any poisonous element which may cause vomiting, giddiness, headache and
nausea. It is also submitted that the complainant has not repelled the product
as per the instructions indicated on the repeller, as hereinbefore indicated.
Since the product does not contain any element of poison, the allegation of the
complainant, that the complainant himself and his family had to suffer from
vomiting, giddiness, headache and nausea from the use of the repeller and also
to be hospitalised is totally wrong and baseless and the said allegations have
been made just to defame the respondent company’s product.
3.
Para
3 of the complaint is admitted to the extent as is borne out from the records.
It is submitted that on receipt of the complaint, the complainant was requested
to send the repeller and take back the cost of the repeller. The allegation of
the complainant that the company did not respond to the letter of the
complainant is wrong and denied. It is submitted that the respondent company
has not indulged in any unfair trade practice and the product sold by the
respondent company is not effectless if the same is used as per the
instructions on the repeller.
4.
The
contents of para 4 are wrong and denied. It is submitted that the product of
the respondent company does not suffer from any detect or it is effectless.
Furthermore the respondent company has
not made any misrepresentation but has clearly indicated thereon the method of
use of the repeller and is in no way cheating its customers/users.
The respondent company has not so far
received any complaint from any of its customers/users. It is submitted that
the respondent company is still willing to refund the price of the repeller on
the complainant returning the repeller to the respondent company.
The prayer clause is totally
misconceived. The respondent company, it is submitted, is not at all
responsible as the repeller has not been used by the complainant as per the
instructions on the repeller. The respondent company is pot at all indulging in
any unfair trade practice as the product of the company is neither defective
nor health hazardous as the same does not contain any element of poison. The
product of the company is only a repeller to drive back, to force away, check
the advance of mosquitoes cockroaches, bedbugs etc. in case it is repelled in
the room as per instructions on the repeller.
It is submitted that the complaint of
the complainant being based on baseless allegations deserves to be dismissed.
It is therefore prayed accordingly.
Place....................
Advocate
for the Respondent
Dated....................
CASE-LAW
DEFICIENCY
IN COURIER SERVICE — NON-DELIVERY OF COVER.
Where there is carriage of the invoice
with limited liability in the event of non-delivery of the cover thereof
liability of the courier is limited to the amount undertaken in the contract
entered into by the parties. 1
Statutory body is not outside the purview
of the Consumer Protection Act.2
Allottee of a flat by builder is a
consumer.3
Order of granting connection cannot be
passed under Section 14 of the COPRA.4
Ss.
2(l)(d) and 2(l)(o) of COPRA
Payment of tax is not a consideration
for service rendered by Government and a complaint about any deficiency in such
service cannot be entertained by Redressal Forum under the Act.5
The person who presents a document for
registration and pays the stamps duty on it or the registration fee does not
become a consumer nor do the officers appointed to implement the provisions of
the two acts render any service within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act.6
The exclusionary clause in Section
2(l)(d)(i) of COPRA shows that the intention of the legislature appears to be
that when the goods are exchanged between a buyer and the seller for,
commercial purpose or for re-sale, such a commercial transaction is excluded
from the purview of the Act.
Instead the legislature intended to
confine the redressal to the service contracted or undertaken between the
seller and the consumer defined under the Act.7
S.
16(l)(a)
For appointment to the office of the
President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission the opinion of
the Chief Justice of the High Court and the requirement of consultation with
him must have the same status as that of the chief Justice in the appointment
of a High Court Judge under Article 217 of the Constitution of India and it is
for the Chief Justice of the High Court to initiate the proposal and to mention
the name approved by him for appointment instead of the
Chief Justice only approving the name
suggested by the State Government.8
APPLICATION
UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 FOR EXECUTION OF ORDER
BEFORE
THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
FORUM AT....................
Execution application
No..................... of 200
In
the Matter of: -
AB............................................
Applicant/Complainant
versus
CD.......................................................
Opposite Parties
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 FOR EXECUTION OF ORDER DATED ....................
PASSED BY HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL
FORUM
Most
Respectfully Showeth: -
1.
That
the applicant-complainant filed complaint for refund of original booking amount
alongwith interest, cost and compensation of.................... car booked
vide Form No..................... dated.......................... against the
opposite parties.
2.
That
the Hon’ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum vide its order dated
the.................... allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties
to (set out gist of order). The said order of the Forum is annexed hereto and
marked as annexure-1.
3.
The
applicant-complainant sent a copy of the said order of the Forum to the
opposite party through his Advocate on the.................... for compliance
under certificate of posting but the opposite party has failed and neglected to
comply with the said order of the Forum till the filing of this execution
application. A photocopy each of the letter and the certificate of posting is
annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-II.
PRAYER
It
is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Forum may in the
interest of justice order execution of the said order by invoking powers vested
in the Forum under section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the
opposite party.
And to pass such order or orders as
this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
Applicant-complainant Through Advocate
Place:....................
Dated:....................
CASE
LAW
Where action is taken under section 27
of the Consumer Protection Act, a notice should be issued to the person sought
to be proceeded against and before punishment and imposition of sentence he
should be heard.1
1. Bharathi Knitting Company v. DHL
Worldwide Express Courier Division Airfreight Ltd., 1996 (5) Supreme 439.
2. Municipal Corporation v. Jaibhagwan
Suganchand Jain, 1991 (I) C. P. R. 509.
3. Prem Sajanani v. M/s. Rekha
Developers, 1993 (I) C. P. R. 607.
4. Gujarat Electricity Board v. Suleman
Mithabhai, 1993 (2) C. P. R. 294.
5. S. M. N. Consumer Protection Council
v. Chief Engineer Highways and Rural Works, 1992 (1) C. P. R. 107.
6. S. P. Goel v. Collector of Stamps,
1996 (1) C. C. C. 17 (S. C. ).
7. Rajeev Metal Works v. The Mineral
& Metal Trading Corporation of India Ltd., 1996 (1) C. C. C. 26 (S. C. ).
8. Ashish Handa v. Hon’ble the Chief
Justice of High Court of Punjab and Haryana, 1996 (1) C. C. C. 375 (S. C. ).
1. Union of India v. Madras Provincial
Consumer Association 1986-1995 Consumer 1200 (National Commission).
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.