Smt. Saritri Pattanaik,  Member(W): 

The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant has filed this Consumer complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging unfair trade practice by the Opposite Parties (in short O.Ps) and for redressal of his grievance before this Commission. 

2. Briefly stated that the case of the complainant is that the complainant for his business purposes have invested the amount with the O.P. Company to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- for supply of  food materials vide D.D.No. 225564 dated 27.12.2012 indenting the items. The O.P.No.1 is the Managing Director of Shritidata Marketing Pvt. Ltd., O.P.No.2 is the Managing partner of O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.3 is an employee under the Company of O.P.No.1 & 2 who is working as an Assistance Sales Manager. Mainly the company deals with the food material. The O.Ps visited the complainant and insisted him to enter into the transaction, the complainant being biased, deposited the drafted amount of Rs.2,50,000/- in favour of the O.P. Company, believing the assurance given by the O.Ps and indented the food materials, but the O.P. Company failed to comply the same as per their assurance and norms of the complainant. But the O.P. Company remained silent and did not choose to pay back the D.D. amount nor delivered the food materials. So the complainant finding no way out initiated the present proceeding against the O.P.No.1, 2 and 3. The conduct of the O.Ps reveals from the above facts that they have neglected in performing their service, deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The O.P.No.3 who was working as Asst. Sales Manager has appeared in the above case and filed his written version admitting all the things relating to receipt of the D.D. bearing No. 225564 dated 27.12.2012 for Rs.2,50,000/- and also the O.P.No.3 has admitted in his W.V. regarding the delivery of food materials to the PURNODAYA Traders, Berhampur amounting to Rs.1,02,124/-. But the balance amount out of Rs.2,50,000/- is with the O.P. No.1 & 2. Till the date the O.P. has neither refunded the rests of the D.D. amount nor the food materials to the complainant since 2012. The O.P. No.1 is trying to grab the amount of Rs.1,48,000/- which belongs to the complainant. For the acts and omissions of the O.Ps the complainant suffers from mental agony and is entitled for compensation for mental agony losses, and damages, sustained by the complainants to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- including the balance amount.

3. Notices were issued to the Opposite Parties. Only the O.P.No.1 and 3 appeared through their advocate and filed written version. The O.P.No.2 neither appeared nor filed any written version. Hence the O.P.No.2 was declared exparte on dated 24.11.2015.

4. The O.P. No.1 filed written version through his advocate. As the very outset it may be affirmed solemnly that the referred complaint has no locus-standi to come before the Consumer Forum as this being a business deal and the relevant  purchase was made for re-sale or for commercial purpose vide Section 1(4)(1) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant is a proprietor of a Trading Company, named and styled as M/s Purnodaya Traders, who plays the role of a middleman in between a consumer and a resourceful supplier/manufacturer of goods for the cause of their individual gain or loss. It is stated that the complainant have a business and to extend his business had invest an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- with O.P.No.1 placed order for huge quantity of food materials for and on behalf of the business namely ‘Purnodaya Traders’ situated at Berhampur and deposited the demand draft at West Bengal at O.P.No.1 business office. As per dealing the complainant brought all the food materials through a road ways namely “Bhubaneswar Roadlines” on payment of Rs.9624/- from West Bengal to Berhampur, Dist: Ganjam on 23.03.2013 and the 136 bags of food materials received by the complainant on the same day at his godown situated at Big Bazar, Berhampur and paid sales tax of Rs.6000/- to the Tax Officer. Thereafter, the complainant is in touch of the O.Ps regularly demanding his cash and kind. But the O.Ps are avoiding the complainant with a view to cheat and grab away the money of the complainant by way of unfair trade practice.  The present complaint is not tenable at all in the eye of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The respected Dist. Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to admit the case. The complainant admitted in its complaint that, O.P.No.1 is having no office at the jurisdiction of this respected Dist. Forum in cause title of the case.  And violating the Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant has filed the case before this respected Forum to harass intentionally to collect a huge amount from the O.P.No.1. Business center of the complainant situated at Berhampur does not create territorial jurisdiction of the respected Dist. Forum. Hence the O.P.No.1 prays to dismiss the complaint with cost.

5. The O.P.No.3 filed version through his advocate. The averments made in the complaint petition are not all true and the complainant is put to strict proof of all such allegations made against O.P.No.3. The averments made in Para-III are also true the oral agreement between the parties was categorically discussed with certain conditions that the O.P.No.1 & 2 will supply the food materials to the complainant after receiving the written order along with payment either in shape of A.D. or PDCS. It was also settled between the parties, during said agreement that any breakage, manufacturing defect will be replaced by the O.Ps on piece to the complaint on intimation within a period of one month from the date of receipt of materials. Although the agreement was binding on the O.P.No.1 & 2 that the O.P.No.3 who is one of the employee of the company will not be held responsible for any monetary loss or gain. So in this case the O.P.No.3 has been impleaded as a misjoinder.  Hence the case may be dismissed against the O.P.No.3.

6. On the date of hearing all the parties found absent on call. We perused the complaint. Written version, written argument, evidence on affidavit and documents placed on the case record. This is a year old case since 2014. Both the parties are remained absent consistently. Hence, the Commission feels that the case be disposed of on merit. The complainant opened his shop in the name and style of Purnodaya Traders at Bigbazar, Berhampur to deal with food materials for his business purposes. The complainant gave his consent to deal with the business of food materials with O.P.No.1 & 2. This Commission by relying upon a citation passed by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in Milan Barot & Ors versus Mukesh Haridat Bhatta & Anr 2011 (2) CPR 12 such as: - “Business dispute is to be adjudicated in a Civil Court and not in a consumer court”.

In the light of the above decision of law the complainant’s case is dismissed against the O.Ps without cost.

      The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.

A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

(SMT. S. PATTANAIK)                              (SHRI S. K. PANIGRAHI)

MEMBER (W)                                              PRESIDING MEMBER

PRONOUNCED ON: 25.04.2023