1. In the instant case, the underlying dispute between the parties pertaining to a consumer complainant filed by the complainant against the O.P. for outstanding payment, amounting to Rs.13, 771/-(Rupees thirteen thousand seven hundred seventy one) only, wherein the complainant is said to be seller/a shop keeper and the O.P is a buyer of goods, i.e. cement and iron rod. It is averred that on dtd.12.11.2017, the sale transaction was made between them and the O.P. had received 20 begs of cements at the rate of Rs.270/- per bag, iron road and Tanagra worth Rs.19, 771/- (Rupees nineteen thousand seven hundred seventy one) and paid only Rs.6, 000/-(Rupees six thousand) only and promised to pay the rest amount of Rs.13, 771/- (Rupees thirteen thousand seven hundred and seventy one) within one month. It is also averred that, the O.P did not keep his promise despite request time and again from the side of the complainant, demanding repayment of balance amount for the price of the articles sold. In view of the above facts and allegation the present complainant sought for relief like refund of Rs.13, 771/-(thirteen thousand seven hundred seventy one) with 15% interest per annum alongwith compensation and litigation cost amounting to total Rs.6, 000/-(Rupees six thousand) only.

      2. Regard being had to above factual background and on perusal of the case record, it is evident that the case is of the year 2019 being admitted on dd.31.12.2019 and was posted on dtd. 28.2.2020 for hearing. In this case, despite notice, the O.P. neither preferred to appear nor has field any written versions and remained silent throughout.

       3. Taking note of the facts and allegation of the complainant, the crux of issue to be decided is-                                                                                                

                   Whether the complainant is a consumer under C.P.Act and whether the relief as sought for is amenable before the Commission ?

      4. Having heard the complainant ,considering the facts and circumstances, it is quite clear that the alleged dispute between the parties pertaining to a sale transaction wherein the complainant herein is the seller/trader of goods and the O.Ps is the purchaser and the nature of allegation and relief  prayed in is recovery of   consideration for the goods sold .To our good conscience, honoring the grievance of a shopkeeper (complainant herein)  we cannot direct a purchaser(O.P herein) to pay the consideration amount of the goods which he has purchased from a shop keeper. The relationship between the complainant and O.P is that of seller and buyer .Moreover, in this case, the complainant has not filed any original documents to substantiate his stand or for inspection of the commission. He has also not pleaded or assigned any reason for the satisfaction of the Commission that such documents are permissible as secondary evidence. Therefore, we are of the view that the complaint is dismissed being not maintainable.

        .However, we observed that the complainant is rustic villager and  proceeded in this case  in good faith as such can take the benefit under section 14 of limitation Act, 1986 in case he likes to agitate the matter in a  competent forum having jurisdiction ad may take the assistance of Dist. Legal services authority for necessary legal assistance and support.

     Pronounce in open court this the 10th day of October, 2022.Copy of the final order be provided to parties, if applied for.