Orissa

Debagarh

CC/37/2019

Amit Kumar Agrawal, aged about 40 years, S/o-Mohonlal Agrawal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Head, USHA International Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

04 Dec 2021

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DEOGARH

C.C NO-37/2019

Present-Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Arati Das, Member.

Amit Kumar Agrawal, age 40 years,

S/O- Mohanlan Agrawal,

R/O-Rajamunda,Ward No-2,

P.O/P.S/Dist-Deogarh.                                                                                       …  Complainant.

                                                             Vrs. 

1. Branch Head

          USHA International Limited,

          N.H-5, Telengapeetha, Via-Phulnakhara,

          Cuttack, Orissa-754001.

2. Branch Head

          USHA International Limited,

          Office at-Surya Kiran,19

          Katuraba Gandhi Marg,New Delhi-110001.                                               … O.Ps

Counsels:-

For the Complainant             :- P.K. Buda, & Associates, Advocate.

For the O.P-1                         :- Sri. R.K Pradhan, Advocates.

For the O.P-2                         :- None

 

Date of Hearing: 05.11.2021, Date of Order: 04.12.2021

SRI DIPAK KUMAR MAHAPATRA,PRESIDENT:-Brief facts of the case is that, the Complainant has a business relationship with the O.P-1. He habitually makes transaction with the O.P-1 and deposited of Rs.10,000/- as security at the time of initiation of the business with an agreement. The Complainant has opted to terminate the agreement with the O.Ps hence he sent a requesting letter to refund all the amount pending with them for Rs.32,183/-(Rs. 22,183/- as incentive on sales along with Rs. 10,000/- security amount).  The O.P on dtd. 09.03.2018 sent an account payee cheque for Rs 32,183/- vide no-“303690” in favour of RAHUL MOBILE CARE to the Complainant, but due to unavoidable heath condition he could not deposit the cheque in time, hence the validity of the cheque is expired. The Complainant after recovery from his health problems has requested the O.Ps to issue a fresh cheque for the same but the O.Ps did not take any steps towards the same in spite of contact with the O.Ps over mobile phone. The Complainant now going through severe financial problems, mental pain and agony due to Deficiency in Service and Unfair Trade Practice caused by the O.Ps. accordingly the Complainant constrained to seek relief in this Forum. The cause of action started on dtd. 05.09.2018 when the Complainant sent a requesting letter to the O.P-1 who remained silent in this matter.

The O.P-1 appeared through his Advocate Sri Rajat Kumar Pradhan who filed written version where he stated that the Complainant does not comes under the Purview of Consumer as the disputes is a disputes relating to business transaction as admitted by the Complainant himself.  The O.P-1 has sent an account payee cheque for Rs.32183/- vide no-303690 dtd. 09.03.2018 but due to neglect act the same could not be deposited by the Petitioner and it is the duty of the petitioner to encash the cheque in time. So the deficiency does not come from the side of the O.P-1. The O.P-1 desires to issue a fresh cheque in favour of the petitioner subject to the condition in regards to return the earlier cheque but the Complainant as yet not submitted the earlier cheque to the O.P.  So the O.P has not committed any deficiency in service to the Complainant and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

The O.P- 2, despite of service of notice he did not bother to file written statements to their defense before this Commission thus challenging the allegations made by the Complainant. So taking it in to consideration as “IT IS A YEAR OLD CASE”, this Commission has rightly decided to dispose off the case on merit basis considering the Complaint petition filed by the Complainant.

POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-

1. Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act-2019?
2. Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?

From the above discussion and materials available on records we inferred that the     Complainant comes under the purview of Consumers as he has a business transaction with the O.P-1 who usually supplies goods in terms of consideration.  The Complainant when opted to close the business transaction with the O.P-1 he made a request to settle the account and refund the balance money after adjusting the security deposit of Rs.10,000/-. On the other side the O.P-1 accepted the proposal paid an amount of Rs. Rs.32183 in shape of cheque in favour of the Complainant/ payee named Amit Kumar Agrawal vide cheque no-303690 dtd. 09.03.2018. But the Complainant could not be able to deposit the said cheque in time for which it is expired. On request by the Complainant the O.P-1 was desirous to issue a fresh cheque subject to the condition that the Complainant has to return the earlier cheque to the O.P-1, but is seen that the Complainant has failed to return the cheque issued earlier by the O.P-1. So we do not find any deficiency alleged to be committed from the side of the O.P-1.Hence we order as under:-

                                                                                     ORDER

 

The Complaint petition is partly allowed. The O.P-1 is directed to issue a fresh cheque amounting Rs. 32,183/- in favour of the Complainant subject to the condition that the Complainant will return the expired cheque to the O.P-1. All the above orders are to be carried out within 30 (Thirty) days of receiving of this order, failing which, the complainant is at liberty to proceed in due process of law. No order as to cost and compensation.          

Order pronounced in the open court today i.e, on 4^th day of DEcember-2021 under my hand and seal of this Commission.

Office is directed to supply copies of the Order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.

I agree,                                                                                             

MEMBER                                                                                           PRESIDENT.

                                                            Dictated and Corrected

                                                                            By me.

           

                                                                     PRESIDENT.