Heard learned counsel for  the appellant.

2.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.                   The case     of  complainant, in nutshell   is that the complainant  in search of his livelihood   by means of self employment, he came in contact  with OP No.2  requested complainant to join in RCM business as representative  to run the COR at Jeypore  and accordingly on 20.11.2008 an agreement was executed between the complainant and OP No.1  and also on the same day another agreement was executed between one Uma Shankar Sonkar  at Jeypore  wherein  OP No.2 took rent   a demise premises for three years to run their business.  It is alleged inter-alia that after the business commenced the OP did not pay the house rent although promised to pay the rent rather on 20.11.2008 the OP demanded Rs.8,00,000/- from the complainant towards security deposit  to which the complainant deposited that amount. Thereafter, the OP  demanded Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant to purchase  racks,computer and other furniture etc. So, the complainant submitted the rent agreement  but the OP did not pay the electricity dues  etc. When the matter stood thus, the OP did not look after  the affairs of the insured business and the complainant has to pay all the payments. Moreover, the OP stopped supply of the materials to the complainant  for which the complainant suffered loss. When the complainant   knew  that  the main business of the Ops was seized by Govt. of Rajasthan   on the assurance by the OP  on payment of certain amount of Rs.7,00,000/- and promised to pay Rs.7,00,000/- but that was not materialized by the OP and as such there was stoppage of the proposal between the OP and the complainant. Therefore, the complainant alleged deficiency in service  and finding no other way, the complaint was filed.

4.            The OP    filed written version stating that  the complaint  is not maintainable because of the arbitration clause is there in the agreement. It is also stated that the complaint is not maintainable and there is no deficiency in service. The OP totally denied the allegations of the complainant and it is  barred by limitation. So, it is stated that learned District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the case.  Therefore, they have no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

5.                       After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum   passed the following order:-

               Xxxx              xxxx              xxxx

                                “ Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Opposite Parties being jointly and severally liable are directed to refund Rs.8.25 lacs towards Security deposit and to pay Rs.1.4 lacs towards electricity, telephone and transportation charges with interest @ 12 % p.a. on the above two awarded sums from the date of filing of this case (03.04.2014) besides Rs.2000/- towards  cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.”

6.                  Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that   learned District  Forum has committed error in law by not considering the materials on record  and the written version with proper perspectives. According to him   that the complainant  is not a consumer because the relationship between the complainant and the OP is at business  to business ( b to b).  Further he submitted that no transaction took place at Jeypore  to trial the case at District Consumer Forum,Jeypore. He also  submitted that the case is  barred by limitation.

7.               Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the submission and submitted that learned District Forum has territorial jurisdiction  to trial  the case and  the agreement was executed by the OP  and the complainant. Therefore, he supports the  impugned order.

  8.               Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties,  perused the DFR and impugned order.

9.                  The first  controversy  of  both the parties that the complainant is not a consumer. It is well settled in law that no consumer complaint will lies if there is relationship between  business to business. In order to start his business  entered to the agreement with the OP on certain terms and conditions. Accordingly, the OP would supply the material and the complainant who deal the same at Jeypore in a rented house  whose rent would be payable   by the OP. The  subsequent rent with regard to the payment of the cost of the material for Rs.8,00,000/- and all the events  clearly proved that there is relationship between the complainant and the OP is a business partner. On the otherhand  it is the case of business to business which is not cognizable in law. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the complaint is not a consumer under the Act. Since, the complainant is not a consumer,there lies no cause of action to file the case.

                  Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. Therefore the appeal stands allowed. No cost. This judgment will  not debar the complainant to seek any other Forum if so advised.

                  Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.  

                  DFR be sent back forthwith.