Date of Filing:17.07.2008<br /> Date of Order:30.12.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 30TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1590 OF 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> M/s Fotokrafts,<br /> By its Proprietor,<br /> Padmanabhan Sai Krishna,<br /> S/o K.V. Padmanabhan, <br /> R/a C-1678, Sahakara Nagar,<br /> Bangalore 92. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> Connect Market Data Pvt. Ltd.,<br /> No.47, II Floor, Millers Road, <br /> Vasanth Nagar, Bangalore-52,<br /> Represented by its Managing/<br /> Executive Director. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> The case of the complainant is that, he is the sole proprietor of “Fotokrafts” dealing with eco tourism and other allied/related business. He is entered into a contract with opposite party to print advertisements in 51 international classifieds and paid a total sum of Rs.17,850/- to the opposite party. Opposite party was requested to furnish proof of print for 51 advertisements and subsequently received only 31 scanned copies of proof of print. However, 20 proofs of prints are still pending. Complainant not received hard copy of the proof of print. There was deficiency in service on then part of the opposite party. The opposite party is liable to make good the damage caused to the complainant.<br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party by RPAD. Opposite party put in appearance and filed defense version stating that complaint is not legally maintainable and the complainant is not covered by the definition of consumer as provided in Sec.2(d) of the C.P Act. It is not disputed that the complainant had entered into a contract with the opposite party to print advertisements in 51 international cities and an amount of Rs.17,850/- was paid. Opposite party is able to give proof of publication for 31 cities. However, opposite party was unable to provide proof of publication for remaining 20 cities. To maintain good relations with the client opposite party has already tendered an amount of Rs.7,000/- vide cheque dated 22/09/2008 and opposite party requested that complainant be directed to receive the cheque submitted by the opposite party. <br /> 3. The matter was set for settlement right from the beginning on 25/08/2008. The representative of the opposite party was present and on the same day submitted that the opposite party is ready for settlement and therefore the matter was adjourned to report the settlement. The complainant was not present on that date. On next date of hearing also the complainant was not present. On 07/10/2008 the opposite party gave a cheque for Rs.7,000/- to settle the matter. After that, 2-3 adjournments granted, the complainant was not present. The representative of opposite party was present. Matter was heard. As submitted by the opposite party, the complainant does not come under the definition of consumer U/Sec.2(d) of the C.P Act, 1986. Admittedly, the complainant is doing business in eco tourism and other allied/related business. It is not the case of the complainant that he is doing business exclusively for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of self employment. Therefore, under the definition of consumer if a person hires or avails any services for any commercial purpose he will not be considered as consumer under the definition Clause 2(d) of the C.P Act. Therefore, there is a considerable force and merit in the argument of opposite party. However, the opposite party submitted that as a good gesture and to maintain good relationship with the client, he has submitted a cheque for Rs.7,000/- to settle the matter. Taking into consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is being disposed off with a direction to the complainant to receive the cheque presented by the opposite party in full and final settlement. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> <br /> 4. The Complaint is partly allowed. The complainant is directed to receive the cheque dated 22/09/2008 for Rs. 7,000/- which is in deposit before this Forum and the matter is closed.<br /> 5. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately as a statutory requirement. <br /> 6. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 30TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2008. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br /> <br /> Rhr.<br />