DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

     SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS,

    AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 144

              C.C. CASE NO. 03 OF 2019

DATE OF FILING: 07.01.2019                 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 19.06.2019   

Present                      :   President       :   Ananta Kumar Kapri

                                        Member         :   Jhunu Prasad                            

COMPLAINANT              :  Noor Hossain Mistry, S/O – Late Ahamed Ali Mistry, Aged about 40 years, Indian Inhabitant residing at village – Chandpur, P.O. – Malancha Mahinagar, P.S. - Sonarpur, Dist. - South 24 Parganas, Kolkata – 700 145. 

• VERSUS   -

O.P/O.Ps                         :  1. One Auto Pvt. Ltd. having its regional office or showroom at Village & P.O. – Baruipur, P.S.-Baruipur, Dist. -  South 24 Parganas, Kolkata – 700 144.

                                                  2. One Auto Pvt. Ltd. having its main office at 406 Kalikapur Road, Near Metro Cash and Carry, South 24 Parganas, Kolkata – 700 099.

_______________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT

Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President

            Facts leading to the filing of the instant case may be epitomized as follows.

            The complainant decided to purchase a D-ZIRE TOUR (Commercial vehicle) and therefore on 20.04.2015 he paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the O.Ps. as booking money for purchase of the aforesaid vehicle. Thereafter, he i.e. the complainant fell in the grip of financial straits and therefore cancelled the booking of the car. With the cancelation of the booking of the car on 03.07.2018, he demanded the refund of the booking money i.e. Rs. 10,000/-. But, refund of the money has not been made in favour of the complainant by the O.P.s and therefore the complainant has come up before this forum with the filing of the instant case praying for refund of the booking money. Hence, this case.

            O.P.s have filed W/V to contest the case. According to them, the complainant has lost the original cash memo and therefore refund of the booking money has been delayed to some extent. But it is given to understand by them that their process for refund of money to the complainant is going on and they will refund the same.

            Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.

                                                POINT FOR DETERMINATION

1. Is the complainant a consumer within the meaning of the term provided in CP Act, 1986?
2. Are the O.Ps guilty of deficiency in service as alleged?  
3. Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for?

  EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES    

Petition of complainant is treated as evidence of complainant. No evidence whatsoever is led by the O.P.s and therefore the case proceeds ex-parte against them.

                                       DECISION WITH REASONS

Point no. 1 :

            To maintain a case before the forum, the complainant must be a consumer under section 2 (1) (d), CP Act, 1986. A commercial transaction has been kept out of the ambit of the aforesaid Act except those commercial transactions which are essential for the complainant for earning their livelihood by means of self-employment. This fact is to be clearly stated by the complainant in his petition of complaint and unless it is so stated by the complainant in his petition of complaint, the case of the complainant must necessarily fall within the jaws of commercial transaction.

            Coming to the facts of the instant case it is found from the petition of complaint that the complainant agreed to purchase a commercial vehicle and for that purpose he advanced Rs. 10,000/- to the O.P.s as booking money. Receipt of money is not denied by O.P.s but, nowhere within 4 corners of the complaint, it is stated by the complainant that he wanted to purchase the commercial vehicle as a means of earning his livelihood by way of self-employment. In absence of such statement of the complainant in his petition of complaint, we do hold that the complainant wanted to purchase the vehicle for commercial purpose and as such the instant case appears to be not maintainable in law.

Point no. 1 is thus decided against the complainant.

Point no. 2 and 3:

           Upon what have been discussed above these 2 points require no further discussion and accordingly these 2 points are also determined against the complainant.

            In the result, the case fails.

            Hence,

 ORDERED

            That the complainant case be and the same is dismissed ex-parte against the O.Ps,  without any cost.

Register-in-charge is directed to supply a copy of this judgment at once free of cost to the parties concerned.

I/We agree                                                               Member                                President

                        Directed and corrected by me

                                                               President