ORDER BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT- MR. P.K. PADHI:
JUDGMENT
Complainant has filed this consumer complaint U/s.35 of C.P. Act, 2019 seeking following reliefs;
“Direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,18,000/- within the time fixed by the Hon’ble Commission”.
The brief fact of the case is that, the complainant is proprietor Sai Infotech, Gandhichhak, Jagatsinghpur and carrying on business. The opposite party is the proprietor of Hitech Compulab, Sahidnagar, Bhubaneswar and suppliers of computer equipments and the complainant has purchased 12 numbers of items as per tax invoice from the opposite party on 20.7.2019 vide HCL/02000 for a sum of Rs.41,320/- and also purchased nine numbers of item on 15.12.2018 vide Invoice No.HCL/05269 for Rs.63,113/- as per the tax invoice. Although the opposite party supplied all the goods as per item of tax invoice but has not supplied the item No.8 of tax invoice No.HCL/05269 and Sl. No.12 of tax invoice No.HCL/02000. In the meantime one year above has been passed away and the complainant requested the opposite party time and again for installation of the aforesaid machine in his business premises but the opposite party paid a deaf ear to it. Due to non supply of the above machine the other machine supplied by the opposite party remained as it is and the complainant could not able to get any profit in his business.
Notice was issued to opposite party on 15.3.2021 and opposite party did not appear, hence opposite party is set ex-parte on 03.6.2022.
The contention of the complainant is that one item out of the bill dt.15.12.2018 and one item out of bill dt.20.7.2019 was not handed over for which he has sustain loss of Rs.8,050/-. The opposite party has not appeared. Invoice copy the opposite party have specifically mention 31 pieces and 24 pieces adding each of the article in the quantity colum which the complainant has received and paid the amount and there is not a scrap of paper in which he has made complain and approach the opposite party and there is no averment to the extent and the complainant has also not stated anything regarding any oral communication to opposite party. We therefore find no materials in the record to come a conclusion that there is any shortage/short coming articles to deliver the complainant. Moreover the complainant has averred that he is carrying on his business for which the complainant is also not a consumer as there is no averment that he is earning livelihood out of the said business as such complainant is not a consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act. We therefore found no merit in this case and accordingly the consumer complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Pronounced in the open Commission on this 18th January,2023.
