DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,
KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. _41_ OF ___2016
DATE OF FILING : 6.5.2016 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: _5.7.2018_
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker & Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Shri Malay Bhattacharjee, son of late Nani Gopal Bhattacharjee , Prop. Of M/s Triparna Traders, at 444, M.G Road, Kolkata – 137 at Charial Bazar, P.S Budge Budge, Dist. South 24-Parganas.
O.P/O.Ps : 1. Shri Asit Kumar Mishra, son of Rabindra Mishra of Mouza-Daudpur Tiyadipara, J.L no.234, Daudpur Nandigram, Midnapore,721101.
2. Shri Atanu Mishra, son of Rabindra Nath Mishra of Mouja-G Daudpur East Tiyadipara, J.L 2, Daudpur Nandigram Purba, Medinopur 721651.
3. Shri Susovan Jana, son of Badal Chandra Jana of Mahammadpur Uttar Para, Mahammadpur, Nandigram, Purbo Medinipur 721631.
4. M/s Greenwich Beverages India Private Limited, Plot no.729, S.K Nagar, R. Colony, J.L. no. 167, P.S Haldia, Dist. Purba Medinipur, Pin-721657.
_______________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
The facts of the complaint , in its narrow compass , run as follows:
The O.P-4 is a Beverage Company and O.P nos. 1,2 and 3 are Directors thereof. Complainant runs a grocery shop. He placed an order to one Subhasis Manna , an employee of O.P-4 for supply of some of its products. He also paid Rs.25000/- as consideration price ,though in two phases i.e on 28.7.2014 and 11.8.2014. But the goods were never supplied to the complainant by the O.Ps, as goes the allegation of the complainant. Repeated requests for supply of the goods by the O.Ps also yielded no positive result. Now, the complainant has prayed for issuing a direction to O.Ps to deliver the goods or alternatively to return the price received by the company and also to compensation etc. Hence, this case.
Notice of the case was served upon the O.Ps through paper publication, but still the O.Ps have not entered into appearance in this case and, therefore, the case is heard exparte against all of them.
The complainant has filed evidence on affidavit along with the documents and the same are kept in the record for consideration.
Upon the averments of the parties following points are formulated for consideration.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Is the case maintainable in Law?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
The complainant has filed evidence on affidavit along with the documents and the same are kept in the record for consideration.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1 & 2 :
It is evident from the complaint itself that the complainant is a businessman; he is having a grocery shop. In addition to that business of grocery, he wanted to start a business of distributorship of beverages of O.P company. He wanted to expand his business to eke out his earning. The complainant has stated in his complaint that he is an unemployed person and that the grocery business is the only source of earning of his livelihood. The grocery shop may be the only source of earning livelihood of the complainant, but the business of distributorship can never be said the only source of earning his livelihood and this being so, the complainant is not covered by the “Explanation” inserted in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant cannot be regarded as a consumer and as such, the instant case appeared to be not maintainable in Law.
The complainant is a distributor of O.P company and it stands established by the O.P nos.4’s letter dated 24.4.2014 filed herein by the complainant. The dispute between the parties is a dispute between the two business persons. It is business-to-business dispute and such kind of dispute is not covered by the provisions of C.P Act, 1986. The object of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is to provide better protection to the interest of the consumer; its object is not to protect the interest of the businessmen. For this reason also, the instant case appears to be not maintainable in Law.
Furthermore, it is found that the complainant has not come up before this Court with clean hands. Nowhere in the complaint, he has disclosed that he is a distributor of O.P-4. He had taken the distributorship under O.P-4 in respect of the business of the beverage company. That he is a distributor of O.P-4 is evident from the company’s letter dated 24.7.2014. A registration document has also been filed by the complainant before this Forum and the said document is dated 24.7.2014. A perusal of this document reveals that the complainant has been allotted a registration no.12188-442056 dated 214.7.2014. All these facts have been kept suppressed by the complainant in order to subserve his extraneous motive.
Be that as it may, it is found that the complainant has not come before this Forum with clean hands and ,therefore, he is not entitled to get any relief or reliefs as prayed for.
Point nos. 1 and 2 are thus disposed of against the complainant.
In the result, the case fails.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed exparte ,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
