.DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,
KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. _164_ OF ___2016
DATE OF FILING : 29.12.2016 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: _3.7.2018_
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker & Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Moumita Maitra, Prop. E-Chhe Tour and Travel, 109/19, Hazra Road, Kolkata – 700 026.
O.P/O.Ps : Ajker Silkroute, Prop. Subrata Naiya, at Lalbati, Diamond Harbour Road, South 24-Parganas, Pin-743331, P.S Diamond Harbour.
_______________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of the instant case by the complainant are that complainant is an unemployed woman and she started a Tour and Travel Business under the name and style “E-Chhe Tour and Travel”. O.P is the proprietor of a Hotel Business conducting package tour under the name and style “Äjker Silkroute” . Complainant paid Rs.1,10,000/- ( Rs.50,000/- on 27.9.2016 and Rs.60,000/- on 5.10.2016) to the O.P and the O.P agreed verbally to provide necessary services such as fooding, lodging and transport etc. to the complainant and her passengers during a tour programme to be started on and from 9.10.2016. Such services were not provided by the O.P and, therefore, the complainant has filed the instant case ,praying for refund of Rs.1,10,000/- and also for compensation etc. Hence, the case.
The O.P has been contesting the case by filing written statement ,wherein it is contended inter alia that the complainant is not a consumer and that he has only business relation with the complainant. So, according to him, the instant case is not maintainable in Law. It is further stated by the O.P that the complainant agreed to pay Rs.1,40,700/- to him for the services to be rendered to the passenger. But she paid only Rs.1,10,000/- . He arranged for rendering services to the passengers of the complainant as much as he could do amidst adverse natural and political situation. The complaint is frivolous and malafide , intended to squeeze money from the O.P and, therefore, the same should be dismissed in limini with cost.
Upon the averments of the parties following points are formulated for consideration.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Is the case maintainable in its present form and in Law?
- Is the O.P guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
The complainant has filed evidences on affidavit. The written version of the statementfiled by the O.Pis treated as his evidence vide his petition dated 14.11.2017. Questionnaires, replies and BNAs filed by the parties are kept in the record for consideration.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1 :
Already heard the submissions of Ld. Lawyers ,appearing for both the parties. Perused the complaint, written version and the materials on record. Considered all these.
It is the version of the complainant that she conducts a tour and travel business under the name and style “E-Chhe” and that O.P also conducts a hotel business under the name and style “Ajker Silkroute”. It is the allegation of the complainant that the O.P did not provide services as agreed upon to the members of her tour party, though he received Rs.1,10,000/- from her. This complaint is not filed by any member of the tour party. The member of the tour party is undoubtedly a consumer within the provisions of C.P Act, 1986. It is stated by the complainant that she is an unemployed and conducts the tour and travel business for earning livelihood by means of self employment. No document is filed by the complainant to prove that she is an unemployed person.
From the averments of both the parties, it transpires that the relation between the complainant and the O.P is one of business relation. The complainant is not aconsumer. The instant dispute is a dispute between the two businessmen and, therefore, it is a business-to-business dispute.
In the case of Lakshmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG International Institute, reported in (1995) (3) SCC 583 = AIR 1995 SC 1428 , it has been held by the Supreme Court that C.P Act, 1986 provides for B2C i.e Business-2-Consumer Dispute, but not for B2B i.e Business-to-Business dispute.That apart, the object of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is to provide better protection for the interest of consumers, not for the interest of businessman.
Coming to the facts of the instant case, it is found that the complainant is not a consumer . She has not filed any paper to show that she is an unemployed person. The burden of proof always lies upon the complainant and it is found that the complainant has not been able to discharge that burden. To say more specifically, the passengers of the complainant are undoubtedly consumers. But none of the passengers has filed any complaint against the O.P. In the facts and circumstances ,we are of the opinion that the complainant being not a consumer ,the instant complaint is not maintainable in Law.
Hence, the Point no.1 is primarily answered against the complainant.
Point nos. 2 and 3 :
In the instant case, the grievance of the complainant is that the O.P has not rendered proper services to the passengers of her in accordance with the terms of the agreement.It is the version of the complainant that she paid Rs.1,10,000/- to the O.P and the O.P agreed to Provide services of fooding, lodging and transport to the passengers of her. A mere averment and nothing more, to the effect that the service rendered by the O.P suffers from Deficiency in service is not enough to entitle the complainant to relief. The complainant will have to prove what kinds of services the O.P agreed to provide to her. He or she is required to state in details what were services as agreed upon between the parties and what kind of services has been provided by the O.P to the complainant. Heor she is also required to state in unambiguous terms what quality of service was agreed by and between the parties and that the services rendered by the O.P falls short of that quality. Nothing details about the services has been stated by the complainant in her petition of complaint and in absence of detailed description of services agreed between the parties and/or rendered by the O.P, we feel constrained to say that the complainant has failed to establish the deficiency in service on the part of the O.P and this being so, she is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
Point nos. 2 and 3 are thus answered against the complainant.
In the result, the case fails.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest, but without cost.
Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.
President
I / We agree
Member Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
