Presented by Smt. A.Behera, Member .
Complainant is a distributor of insecticides and pesticides etc under the Opposite Parties having a business relationship and resells the items after purchase from the Opposite Parties in this case to earn his livelihood but by the end of November-2010 the Opposite Parties in this case have supplied items excess in relation to the order submitted and with under payment, along with supplying some bad and damaged products which the Opposite Parties did not withdrawn even after dragging off their attention to the matter by the Complainant. Opposite Parties also demanded an outstanding amount of Rs. 4,27,879/-(Rupees four lakh twenty seven thousand eight hundred seventy nine)only from the Complainant and did not paid any heed to the continuous requests of the Complainant to resolve the issue for which Complainant alleges to have sustained pecuniary lossess and suffered with mental agony and harassment and when the Opposite Parties did not respond even to the Pleader Notice sent to them he has no other options left then filing of this case.
Complainant claims Rs. 4,50,000/-(Rupees four lakh fifty thousand)only from the Opposite Parties as compensation for all his lossess.
Complainant relies on the following documents to substantiate their case.
(a) Pleaders Notice sent to the Opposite Party dated 22 June 2011.
(b) Account statement from Bharat Insecticides Limited from Dt.01/04/2010 to Dt.18/10/2011(three pages)
Opposite Parties being noticed appeared on Dt.20/01/2013 and take some time for filing of their version which they filed on Dt.14/05/2013 jointly denying all the allegations made by the Complainant and praying for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
Opposite Parties relied and filed the following documents to substantiate their contention.
True copy of Distributorship Application Form of M/S Behera Traders Prop Lalit Kumar Behera (three sheets).
True copy of Recommendation for Distributer' s Appointment Application Dt: 12.12.2009 in company standard form (three sheets).
True copy of Registration certificate of for Dealers Liable to pay value added tax (VAT) Dt:12.08.2009 (one sheets)
True copy of License issue by Orissa Agricultural Department in favour of Behera Traders Prop: Lalit Kumar Behera for sale of all kind of pesticides and insecticides.
True copy of certified copy of proceeding for dishonor of cheque filed by OP No.1 ( Bharat Insecticides Ltd ) bearing Criminal complaint No.598 of 2012 before Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Delhi against the present complainant (Lalit kumar Behera) (eight sheets).
True copy of certified copy of list of witness (one sheets).
True copy of cheque No. 001677 Dt. 18.04.2012 for Rs.1,95,000/- (Axix bank Bargarh) Issue by the opposite Party Lalit Behera infavour of Bharat insecticides Ltd with counter folio and receipt of aforesaid cheque by HDFC Bank.
True Copy of Memorandum issued by HDFC Bank infavour of complainant (two sheets).
True copy of Advocate notice for payment of Rs.1,95,000/- issued by Advocate Ajay Gupta Delhi against the complainant Lalit Behera along with two postal receipt and two acknowledgment of receipt (AD).
True copy of Article Tracking of India Post.
True copy of advocate notice of Manoj kumar satapathy Dt.16.05.20012 to the Advocate for the OP company (with copy of envelops).
True copy of certified copy of computer copy of Invoice No.0040 Dt.30.11.2010.
True copy of certified copy of computer copy of Invoice No.00433 Dt:30.11.2010.
Statement account of Behera Traders maintained with Bharat Insecticides Ltd bearing customer Code no.103220 Branch code BBS from Dt:17.12.2009 to Dt:09.06.2012 (four sheets).
Affidavit filed before the court of chief Metropolitan Magisstrate Delhi (four sheets).
Postal receipt of Regd Notice Dt.15.11.2012 issued by Sri Chandra Mohan Metropolitan Magistrate (center Room No.292 Tis Hazari Court Delhi ) (two sheets ).
Postal Acknowledgment.
True copy of C/C of Order of CMM to issued fresh summon to Lalit Behera Dt.12.07.2012.
True of certified copy of NBW issued by Metropolitan magistrate against the complainant Lalit Behera on Dt.05.07.2013 ( two sheets)
Heard the matter on Dt.27.10.2014 from counsels of both the Parties who elaborately complained their issues and submitted to the Forum. Perused the documents filed by the Parties attached with the case record and the following points comes out:-
That the Complainant is a distributor of the Opposite parties whose work is to purchase fertilizers and insecticides from the Opposite party and resale the same in retail market.
The Complainant is also distributor of some other companies from whom he is purchasing materials for reselling hence it can be concluded that Complainant is in the reselling business for various agricultural products which is supported by the documents filed with the case record.
Complainant is doing the work of reselling business appointing two persons and using two wheelers and four wheelers and one of a godown.
From the distributor application from Parties have agreed and are binding to form that all disputes between them are Delhi jurisdiction only.
The registration certificate from CTO, Bargarh filed with case record shows that the Complainant is doing wholesale business of insecticides and other agricultural products.
A complaint U/S 138 of NI Act has also been filed against this Complainant before the Delhi Metropolitan Magistrate by the Opposite Parties in June-2012 and before filing of the complaint due and proper notice has been given to the Complainant.
Complainant alleges that the complaint U/S 138 of NI Act is one to harass the Complainant using one of this blank cheque obtained at the time of appointment of distributor ship but the application does not show that any cheques were included with the documents which were filed along with the application of distributor ship. But the xerox copy of an cheque amounting to Rs. 1,95,000/-(Rupees one lakh ninety five thousand)only is there and the return of the same with marking of insufficient funds are also there proving dishonouring of the cheque and cheque duly signed by the Complainant.
NBW has also been directed to be issued against the Complainant avoiding appearnce in the Case U/S 138 of NI Act field at Delhi vide C.C. No.598/P/12 Dt.04/01/2013.
To disprove the dishonour of the cheque specified in the case, Complainant have not filed the xerox copies of passbook related to the cheque showing sufficient funds on the presentation day of the cheque neither filed any account statement obtained to show sufficient funds in the account.
Complainant have also not filed documents relating to transactions showing delivery actual ordered item on other facts. The documents filed somehow showing some transactions are not enough to clearly get the truth and verify factums of allegations.
Complainant alleged that materials worth more than 10(ten) lakh has been supplied with an under payment of money when only Rs.5,77,113/-(Rupees five lakh seventy seven thousand one hundred thirteen)only has been actually paid. But failed to establish this fact with documentary evidence. Again the account statement filed by the Complainant shows various payments and invoice amounts and no where this reply of Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees ten lakh)only invoice is there neither any cheque payment of Rs.1,95,000/-(Rupees one lakh ninety five thousand)only is also there. The statement shows only payments made and invoices of materials delivered point to be noted here as per the terms of agreement while appointment of distributor ship, the Complainant is eligible to get credit supply of material sup to Rs.12,00,000/-(Rupees twelve lakh)only. So if extra supply is made it can not be said forced supply when Complainant did not filed any document pertaining to the actual order for the period as alleged.
No proof relating to excess forced supply is accorded by the Complainant. No any proof regarding any security cheques are also filed. The statement filed do not tally the allegation.
As per settled consumer decisions at different Forums all over India resale business do not come under the purview of C.P. Act. But when question of livelihood was raised by the Complainant Forum considered the level of business and outcome is that the wholesale resale business can not be done for earning livelihood only with a considerable transaction amount and when the Complainant is going from discounts for bulk purchase, profit from reselling plus earring commission.
Complaint is devoid of any merits and stands dismissed.
Disposed off accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree, I agree, I agree,
(Smt. Anjali Behera ) (Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash) ( Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak)
M e m b e r. M e m b e r. P r e s i d e n t.
