PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Complaint No.- 126/2023

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member

Prahallad Mittal,

S/O- Raghunandan Mittal,

R/O- Greater Sambalpur, Po/Ps-Bareipali, Dist-Sambalpur,

Director of Homvery Pvt. Ltd., 444, Kar Building, Krishnanagar, Khetrajpur,

Sambalpur-768003, CIN-U-74999OR2018P7C 08315.

Mob-7978706822                                                   …………........Complainant

Vrs.

AR Robotics India Pvt. Ltd.

At-Gobindtola, PO-Dhanupali,

Dist-Sambalpur-768005.                                                         .…...…….Opp. Party

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :- Sri. H.K. Babu & Associates
2. For the O.P.                        :- Sri. S.S. Panda & Associates

Date of Filing:23.08.2023,  Date of Hearing :09.04.2024  Date of Judgement : 13.05.2024

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is an educated unemployed and he decided for registration of a company to provide various type of house hold services, like electrification and repairing, sanitary fitting and so on and registered their company name style as “Homvery Pvt Ltd”. The OP took mega contract works and gave small part of their contract work to different companies, on the rate and price agreed between them and the Complainant was one amongst them. The OP has given works to the complainant at different points of time at different places. A sum of Rs. 43,68,000/- has been paid by the OP to the Complainant out of Rs. 66,02,764/- and as such sum of Rs. 22,34,764/- has not been paid to the Complainant. The Complainant requested the OP several time for the payment of rest amount but the OP turned deaf ear towards Complainant. The Complainant through his advocate sent a notice demanding the payment of rest amount on 15.06.23 but the OP did not pay the rest amount and sent a letter of respond to the advocate of the Complainant setting out different reason for non-payment of the rest amount which is virtually not true. Such act of the OP is not only contradicts to law, but also amount to deficiency of service.
2. The Version of the OP is that the Complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act and as such the alleged dispute in the complaint petition is not a consumer dispute and on that count, the case is liable to be dismissed. The OP used to take contract works from the Govt. and the Govt.  authorities used to measure and verify the quality of the work done by the OP. Later on the OP found that the Complainant started cheating the OP and has managed to take more money from him by submitting false bills. Due to inferior quality of the work done by the Complainant, Govt. has not sanctioned the bill of the OP and as such a sum of more than Rs. 35, 00,000/- approx of the OP is outstanding against the Govt. only because of the poor work of the Complainant. The Complainant has submitted false bills for items which have not been used in the work site. He has also submitted bills for higher number of items then it is actually used and has done poor quality of work. These defects in the work of the Complainant have been detected by the JE and have reported to the authorities. Moreover the Complainant had not paid the cost of the materials to the dealer from whom he had obtained and laborers who were engaged. As he did not pay the price and labor charge thereof, those persons created Halla and gave Dharana in the office of BDO, Lakhanpur Block and the amounts were adjusted in the bill. The Complainant has no out standings on the OP as he has already received more than the work done by him. The Complainant has issued a notice on dt. 15.06.2023 through his advocate to the OP and the OP had duly replied to the said notice through his advocate. So the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed.
3. After perusal of the records available, it is found that  the Complainant is not coming under the definition of Consumer as because he has not fulfilled the criteria defined U/s 2 (7) of the definition clause of Consumer on the CP Act, 2019. The Complainant has also not submitted and given evidence that he is a consumer of the OP. The contract between the parties is purely commercial and work for gain. So the case is dismissed on merit.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 13^th day of May, 2024.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.