DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,
KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. __96_ _ OF ___2016
DATE OF FILING :_5.9.2016 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 19.9.2018
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker & Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Sri Buddhiswar Das ,son of late Jaharlal Das of Subhasgram, Vill. & P.O -, Ward no.15, Chanditala Park, Near Ratna School, P.S Sonarpur, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Kolkata-144.
O.P/O.Ps : 1. The Chief Executive, Shriram Health, 43/1, Garden Reach Road, Kolkata – 44.
2. Tinjin Tianshi India Pvt. Ltd. 8/52, Dr. B.N. Road, (North Boag Road) , T. Nagar, Chennai-600017.
_______________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 , C.P Act, 1986 ,alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
Facts leading to the filing of the instant case , as it stands in the amended petition of complaint, may be epitomized as follows.
Complainant’s son Amit Das is physically handicapped since birth . O.P nos. 1 and 2 advised the complainant to adopt their therapy for a year and also assured that his son would surely be cured of his ailment, or else the money would be refunded to him. The complainant paid Rs.1,04, 604/- to the O.P company and also used the product of O.P company as given to him by the O.Ps. But no improvement whatsoever was noticed in the physical condition of his son. The complainant demanded refund of the money paid by him to the O.Ps. But the O.ps refused to pay the money. Now, the complainant has filed the instant case , praying for refund of Rs.1,04,604/- , payment of compensation etc.
O.P nos. 1 and 2 have been contesting the case by filing written statement separately . But the contents of their written statement are all the same. According to them, the complainant is a Distributor of the company; he was appointed as such to sell the products of the company and has also received commission and Bonus from the company on the sale of the products. Their relation with the complainant is one of business to business and , as such, the complainant is not a consumer. The instant case is, therefore, not maintainable against them and should be dismissed.
Upon the averments of the parties, the 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 ?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1 & 2 :
It is the version of the O.Ps that complainant is not a consumer in accordance with the provisions of the C.P Act, 1986. According to them, the complainant was appointed as a distributor of the O.P company to sell the products of the company and as such, he cannot be regarded as a consumer under section 2(1)(d) of the C.P Act, 1986. To prove their contention, the O.Ps have filed, amongst other, photocopy of the Distributor Application Form which was submitted by the complainant before the Company. On perusal of this Form, it is found that complainant has signed the aforesaid Form and the aforesaid Form also bears the account number of the complainant with his banker’s name. This very document i.e the Distributor Application Form goes to rule out the complainant’s case in its entirety. Complainant’s case is that he purchased medicines from the O.Ps for treatment of his handicapped son. No one provides the banker’s name and the account number to the vender of medicine while purchasing medicine. The complainant has no explanation as to why he submitted this Form before the O.P company or as to why he supplied his banker’s name and account number to the O.Ps. It is the version of the O.Ps that the complainant was distributor of them for selling their products.
Another document is also filed by the O.Ps and it is seen there from that the complainant has received Bonus from the O.P company for the month of November, 2014, December,2014, March 2015 , April 2015 , May 2015. These documents i.e the bonus document and the distributor application form establish beyond doubt that the complainant was appointed to act as a distributor of the O.Ps for sale of the products of the O.P company.
Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P Act, 1986 clearly lays down that a person who buys goods for resale of the same, is not a consumer. In this view of the Law, the complainant cannot be regarded as a consumer; he is an intermediate customer and an intermediate customer is not a consumer in the eye of Law. His complaint, therefore, appears to be not maintainable.
At the first blush we though the complainant is a genuine consumer; we could not understand at that moment that a snake is lying under the grass within him. Now, it is found that he has not come before the Forum with clean hands. He was appointed by the O.P company as a distributor for selling the products of the company . All these facts have been kept suppressed by the complainant. He has made an attempt to make out before the Forum a concocted story of his own. His story is that he purchased medicine for treatment of his son who is a handicapped one. This attempt is made on the part of the complainant only with extraneous motive – the motive is to get the instant case entertained within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Such a person with impure motive is not worthy for getting any relief from the Court of Law. The complainant is, therefore, not entitled to get any relief from the Forum.
In consequence, the case fails .
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps, but without any 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
