IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/15/2019
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
30.01.19 13.02.19 07.12.22
Complainant: Manawar Ali Mondal,
S/o – Lt. Sodoruddin Mondal,
Vill – Islampur,
P.O. & P.S.- Islampur,
Dist-Murshidabad
Pin- 742304.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: Mahalaxmi Associates Pvt. Ltd.
Represented by its Authorized Signatory,
19th Floor, 19 A/2, Everest Building,
46C Chowringhee Road, Kolkata-71.
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Pranab Kr. Das
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Parties : Saugata Das
.
Present: Sri Ajay Kumar Das…………………………..........President.
Sri. Subir Sinha Roy………………………………….Member.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Sri. Ajay Kumar Das, Presiding Member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Manawar Ali Mondal (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Mahalaxmi Associates Pvt. Ltd. (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainant is a supplier of Non Coking Coal and he is running the said business exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. The Complainant purchased Non Coking Coal from various suppliers and supplied the same to various Brick fields in his jurisdiction. The Complainant purchased Indonesian Steam (Non Coking) Coal of 30,620 mts at the rate of Rs. 6900/- per mts total amounting of Rs. 2,92,612/- including G.S.T., TCS on 01-12.2018 from the Opposite Party and on the same day the Complainant also purchased Indonesian Steam (Non Coking) Coal of 30.440 mts at the rate of Rs. 6900/- per mts total amounting of Rs. 2,35,041/- including G.S.T., TCS. The entire amount had been paid by the Complainant through Bank Draft/Cheque against the said purchase. At the time of purchase the O.P. assured to the Complainant that the O.P. would deliver the said purchased products to the address given by the Complainant. Accordingly, the Complainant gave the details of address where the products would be delivered.
The Complainant became astonished after receiving the said (Non Coking) Coal and he found the quality of goods was very low standard and the market value of the said (Non Coking) Coal was Rs. 4000/- per mts only not Rs. 6900/- per mts. It was very unfortunate for the Complainant that he purchased a good quality product from the O.P. and he also paid the entire amount against the said purchase but O.P. sent low standard products. Moreover, while the said (Non Coking) Coal reached to the Complainant he found that the products did not match with sample products.
The actual market value of the Indonesian Steam (Non Coking) Coal which the Complainant received was 30.620 MTS at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per mts =1,22,480/- and 30.440mts at the rate of Rs. 4000/- = Rs. 121,760/- total amounting of Rs. 2,44,240/-. Moreover the O.P. imposed the TSC of Rs. 58,522.48/- against 30.620 mts which is illegal and imaginary.
Thereafter, the Complainant repeatedly requested O.P. to return the said low standard product of (Non Coking) Coal but the O.P. did not take any initiative to return the low standard product of (Non Cooking) Coal. So, ultimately, the Complainant sold the maximum portion of said bad quality (Non Cooking) Coal of Rs. 4000/- per mts only. Thereafter the Complainant demanded the excess amount which had been paid by the Complainant and sent a letter through his Advocate on 27-12-2018 but unfortunately the O.P. did not initiative to return the excess amount along with excess TSC.
Finding no other alternative the complainant filed the instant case before this District Commission praying for appropriate relief.
Defence Case
The O.P. is contesting the case by filing W/V contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable. The specific case of the O.P. is that the complaint is lacking jurisdiction before this Hon’ble Forum in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as for want of territorial jurisdiction since no event took place on 10th January, 2019 nor any cause of action arose ( wholly or partly) on 10th January, 2019 as stated in the complaint, more so in view of the invoices clearly mentioning the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Courts at Guwahati in case of all disputes arising in connection therewith.
The Complainant has wrongly approached this Hon’ble Forum although the Complainant is a supplier, not a ‘Consumer’ as required to maintain the instant case, since the transaction involved is for commercial purpose and obtained goods for resale and hence, the complaint ought not to be entertained by this Hon’ble Forum.
The O.P. prays for dismissal of the case with costs.
On the basis of the complaint and written version the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case:
Points for decision
1. Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
2. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?
3. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons:
Point no.1, 2 & 3
All the points are taken up together for the sake convenience and brevity of discussion.
The point to be noted is that the Complainant has not been taking any steps for long period. It is a case of the year 2019. Such being the position we are of the view that the instant case is required to be disposed of on merit.
Ld. Advocate for the O.P. is present. She submits before this Commission that the complaint is lacking jurisdiction before this Hon’ble Forum in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as for want of territorial jurisdiction since no event took place on 10th January, 2019 nor any cause of action arose ( wholly or partly) on 10th January, 2019 as stated in the complaint, more so in view of the invoices clearly mentioning the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Courts at Guwahati in case of all disputes arising in connection therewith.
We find the copy of invoice filed by the Complainant. We find invoice being Sl. No. G518Y-01005 dated 01.12.2018 and the invoice bearing No. G518Y-01006 dated 01.12.2018. We find that in both the invoices it has mentioned in terms and conditions that all disputes are subject to Guwahati jurisdiction.
Ld. Advocate for the O.P. submits that the Complainant has wrongly approached this Hon’ble Forum although the Complainant is a supplier, not a ‘Consumer’ as required to maintain the instant case, since the transaction involved is for commercial purpose and obtained goods for resale and hence, the complaint ought not to be entertained by this Hon’ble Forum.
It is mentioned in the complaint that the Complainant purchased Non Coking Coal from various suppliers and supplied the same to various Brick field in his jurisdiction. The facts and circumstances suggest that the Complainant purchased Non Coking Coal for the purpose of resale. Such being the position the Complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
In view of the matters discussed above, we are of the view that the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 30.01.19 and admitted on 13.02.19. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act, 1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
In the result, the Consumer case is dismissed.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint Case No. CC/15/2019 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP but under the circumstances without any order as to costs.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
President
Member Member President.
