PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Complaint No.- 145/2024

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. SadanandaTripathy, Member

PradipPadhi,

S/O- GopalPadhi,

At- Jagannath Colony, Po- Budharaja, Ps- Ainthapali

Dist- Sambalpur, Odisha Pin- 768004.

Mob-9668306117                                                ...………..Complainant

Versus

1. DEEPAK AHIRWAR, PROPRIETOR OF D.K. GREEN ENTERPRISES,

EVS 10 MadhubanBapurDham Ghaziabad,

Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201013,

2. INDIA MART INTER MESH LTD.
6.  

Plot No. 22, Sec-135, Noida, UP, India.               …………... Opp.Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :- Sri. M.K. Sandha & Associates
2. For the O.Ps.                       :- Ex-parte

Date of Filing:24.04.2024,  Date of Hearing :05.11.2024  Date of Judgement : 16.12.2024

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant filed the case about deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the OPs. The Complainant had ordered for non-woven material bags and carry bags and rate provided by the OP No. 1 is fixed Rs. 43,700/-. The OP No. 1 requested the Complainant to pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- as advance towards advance booking and confirmed. Believing upon the words of the seller and relying upon the OP No. 2 platform , the Complainant has ordered the product of non-woven material bags of an amount of 400kgs and non-woven carry bags 8*10 of an amount of 100kgs and paid Rs. 20,000/- as an advance amount on dtd. 23.03.2024 through phone pay. After four days the Op No. 1 contacted the Complainant and said his product is manufactured and ready for delivery and asked for final payment. The Complainant believing upon him in good faith paid an amount of Rs. 23,700/- on dtd. 27.03.2024 through phone pay.   After one day of payment the Complainant calls the OP No.1 but the OP No.1 switched off his phone. The Complainant called the OP No. 2 but the OP No. 2 said, they are only online platform, the seller only responsible what was happened. Both the OPs completely failed in performing their duty and adopted unfair trade practice, fraud, cheating and criminal breach of trust.
2. The version of the OP No. 2 is that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed as the product in question was bought for business purposes. The answering OP No. 2 only provided a technology platform to enable a supplier to list their commercial goods or services. The OP No. 2 is not involved in any sale or purchase. In fact, there is no transaction based commission or consideration charged by the answering OP No. 2 from the supplier or buyer. By mere perusal of the aforementioned provisions, it can be established that the Complainant is neither a consumer to the OP No. 2 nor any service was rendered to the Complainant.  There has been no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 2.
3. After going through the records, evidences and submission of parties, it is observed that the OP No. 1 did not supply the products to the Complainant after receipt the cost of the product and remain silent. So deficiency in service is found against the OP No. 1. In the other hand, the OP No. 2 is a platform. So, the OP No. 2 has no deficiency in service. Accordingly it is ordered.

                             ORDER

The O.P No. 1 is directed to refund the price of product to the Complainant within one month from the date of this order, Rs. 50,000/- towards negligence, deficiency in service as Compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost & litigation expenses of the petition to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of order, failing which the amount will further carry with 9% interest per annum till realization to the complainant.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 16^th day of Dec, 2024.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.