This is a complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the prayer for direction upon O.P to Return Rs.2,00,000/- with 12% interest from the date ,of advance to the O.P on 09.04.14 and also for compensation of Rs.95,000/- for unnecessary harassment and mental pain and also Rs.5,000/- for litigation cost.
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant, resident of Tunghidighi and O.P is also having Electronics goods shop in that area . Complainant intending to purchase some electronics goods from the shop of the O.P and made advance payment of Rs.1,00,000/- on 09.01.14. Then after receiving a phone call on that day he again pay Rs.1,00,000/- on that day to O.P, but O.P did not supply the goods after lapse of 7 days. After few days he again went to the shop and asked for the electronics goods or to return the money. O.P assured that he will return the money if he fails to supply the goods soon. O.P never thereafter supplied any goods, nor refunded any money. Therefore complainant sent legal notice on 10.11.14 and ultimately filed this case with the above prayer as mentioned above.
.
O.P appeared and contested the case by filing written version, wherein they categorically denied the allegations of the complainant. O.P. made a very elaborate written statement assailing the complaint. O.P stated that petitioner have business relationship with O.P. He falsely stated that he is a student and it is not believable that a student can purchase electronics goods by paying Rs.2,00,000/- in one day for his personal use. That the petitioner is barred u/s.2(c) of the Consumer Protection Act and also u/s.2(b) of C.P.Act. O.P is not a consumer as they have business relation with each other. That, he used to purchase electronics goods from O.P. On 13.03.14 he purchased 29 such items like several LED T.Vs, intex speaker amounting to Rs.2,34,713/- against receipt. On 08.04.14 he paid Rs.1,36,001/- to the O.P against money receipt acknowledged the same and asked O.P to supply the electronics items on credit and assured to repay the entire amount within 09.04.14. Accordingly on 08.04.14 several such electronics items amounting to Rs.1,17,392/-were collected by the petitioner and O.P issued two bills on 08.04.14. On 09.04.14 subsequently he paid Rs.1,00,000/- in the evening against money receipt and assured to pay the remaining balance wi5thin short period. Disputes arose when he did not repay the outstanding amount of Rs.16,004/-. Instead of repaying the amount petitioner claim further business item on credit. When asked for money petitioner disclosed that he was yet to collect money from his customer. However, on 27.07.14 O.P again supplied 12 Pieces. Of T.V and other items amounting to Rs.71,952/- and issued bill to him. Petitioner again failed to repay and O.P tried to create pressure through Byabasayee Samity also. Suddenly on 11.11.14 he served notice upon O.P on some false and fabricated story. Till date O.P is entitled to Receive Rs.16,004/- + Rs.71,952/-= Rs.87,956/-. That, petitioner filed this case to deprive him from his legitimate dues by stating a fabricated story and this petition is not maintainable in this Forum and prays for dismissal of the same.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Petitioner has been examined as P.W.1and one Maidul Islam is examined as P.W.2 He files two money receipts of Ishita Empire of O.P showing payment of Rs.1,00,000/- each, the legal notice asking to refund Rs.200,000/- for failure to give delivery of the goods etc. O.P himself is examined as O.P.W.1 and he files documents like several books of bills voucher etc. showing his business correspondence with petitioner and others. Petitioner deposed that he did not mention in the complaint petition the specific names and number of items of electronics goods for which he paid total Rs.2,00,000/- on 09.04.14. It is something absurd to this Forum as to why he did not mention specifically the name of electronic goods he intending to purchase. Petitioner denied that he paid Rs.2,34,613/- on 13.04.14 for purchasing electronics goods or on another occasion he purchased goods on credit amounting to Rs.71,952/- etc. He in fact denied in evidence that he has any business relation with O.P etc. He admits that his father is a business man and he himself maintains Income Tax file for running his own business. P.W.2 deposed in cross examination that he came to know that petitioner paid Rs.2 lacs and O.P assured to supply electronics goods etc. In cross examination P.W.2 further stated that he cannot say whether complainant has any other business besides his hardware business. P.W.2 admits that he had transaction of money with O.P and he took Rs.25,000/- one year ago and though he denies any dispute or he himself fails to refund the same to O.P etc..
O.P deposed that complainant used to purchase electronics goods for business purpose. He produced vouchers, bills showing several items purchased by petitioner on different days. The carbon copy of those bill vouchers are produced in bunch. O.P produced bill vouchers No.1294 showing payment of Rs.1,36, 001/- on 08.04.14. The voucher carbon copy also goes to show the signature of complainant Salim Akhter.
Giving due consideration to the contents of the complaint petition, documentary evidence on record, hearing, argument advanced by the lawyers of both sides, the Ld. Forum has come to the findings as follows: -
The money receipt book/voucher No.1295 and 1296 showing payment of Rs.1,00,000/- each dt.09.04.14 with signature of Salim Akhtar is also produced by the O.P. The bills voucher books produced and No.1291 dt. 13.03.14 shows petitioner Salim Akhter purchased number of T.Vs and other items of Rs.2,34,613/- with note “due paid within 7 days”. So also the bill No.1358 dt.27.07.14 goes to show that 12 number of T.Vs and 6 other electronics item amounting Rs.71,952/- was purchased by Salim Akhter, with remark ‘due paid within 7 days of billing date’. From those bill books , vouchers/ money receipts etc. goes to show that complainant has business relation with petitioner and he is in habit of purchasing electronics items from O.P’s shop. Some receipts are duly signed by Salim Akhtar also. Therefore complainant cannot claim that he only 1st time intended to purchase for his own use some electronics goods and paid in advance Rs.2,00,000/- on 09.04.14. He failed to prove that he has “no business connection” with O.P. He failed to give satisfactory answer proved as to why he paid Rs.2,00,000/- in advance without mentioning any item of electronics goods which he intended to purchase. On the other hand from the books of bill vouchers original produced by the O.P , O.P has been able to prove that petitioner purchased several electronics items on 13.03.14, 0n 08.04.14, on 27.04.14 often on credit and often paying lump sum in amount. Petitioner intentionally did not mention the name of electronics goods which he actually intended to purchase paying advance Rs.2,00,000/- on 02.04.14. Therefore, dispute arose between the parties arising out of their business transaction. O.P by sufficient oral and documentary evidence was able to convince this Form that the petitioner used to obtain such electronics items for commercial purpose and not necessarily for the personal use. Therefore, petitioner does not fall under the definition ‘Consumer’ as defined u/s.2(d) of C.P.Act 1986. The dispute arose between the parties is purely Civil in nature to be decided by appropriate forum after taking elaborate evidence from both sides. Therefore, this Forum can safely conclude that petitioner totally failed to establish that he paid in advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to O.P for purchasing domestic goods/ electronic items for his personal use and is not entitled to get any relief from this Forum.
Fees paid is correct. Hence, it is
ORDERED,
That the consumer complaint being No. CC-14/15 be and the same is dismissed on contest but without cost.
Let copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
