IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

CASE No.  CC/99/2019.

 Date of Filing:                    Date of Admission:                       Date of Disposal:

 29.07.19                                      01.08.19                                                07.09.23

Complainant: Subrata Dey,Proprietor,

Dey Bag Center

Satui Station Road, PO-Satui,

PS-Berhampore, Pin-742405

-Vs-

Opposite Party:Latiful Khabir, Organizer,

Kismatgadi Rabindra Nazrul Academy

Sahebnagar Purbapara, PO-Adikantanagar,

PS-Sagardighi, Pin-742227

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant                        : Subhanjan Sengupta

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1             : Saikul Islam

Present:    Sri Ajay Kumar Das………………………….......President.     

         Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.

FINAL ORDER

Sri.ajay kumar das, presiding member.

This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.

            One Subrata Dey (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Organizer, Latiful Khabir, Kismatgadi Rabindra Nazrul Academy (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

The material facts giving rise to file the complaint are that:-

        The Complainant is a businessman and that is his only livelihood.

        The Complainant was ordered by the OP to supply bags in favour of the OP the order was as under:-

I)    200 bags @ Rs. 125/- = Rs. 25,000.00

II)   130 bags @ Rs. 220/- = Rs. 28,600.00

            ________________________________________

                        Total                              = Rs. 53,600.00

            ________________________________________

            The Complainant had supplied entirely as per the order of the OP. After the supply of the bags the OP had paid to the Complainant as under:-

I)   08.12.2018   -   Rs. 5,000.00

II)  06.01.2019   -   Rs. 5,000.00

III) 14.01.2019   -   Rs. 20,000.00

IV) 13.02.2019   -   Rs. 10,000.00

V)  11.04.2019   -   Rs. 5,600.00

            __________________________________

                        Total             -   Rs. 45,600.00

            __________________________________

            Till date the OP had not paid the rest amount and is continuously harassing the Complainant.

            The Complainant had faced lots of trouble which was due to the negligent attitude of the OP. The Complainant had approached the OP for proper redress but the OP without any valid reason had denied.

            The Complainant approached the OP for proper redress and prayed for the proper remedy. But the OP showed inattention towards this Complainant.

            The Complainant prayed for directing the OP to pay Rs. 8,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- for harassment and Rs. 58,000/- for mental agony.

            The OP contesting the case by filing written version contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable in law and the case is barred by principals of waiver and barred by limitation.

            The OP stated in their written version that the Complainant is not a consumer of the OP and there is no consumer relationship in between the Complainant and the OP. So, the Complaint filed by the Complainant is not maintainable at all.

On the basis of the complaint and the written versions the following points are framed for proper  adjudication of the case :

Points for decision

1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?

3. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?

Decision with Reasons:

All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion. Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that he has filed evidence supported by affidavit. The evidence corroborates the complaint. Complainant has proved his case. He prays for necessary order.

            Ld. Advocate for the OP has submitted before this District Commission that the Complainant is not a consumer of the OP and there is no consumer relationship in between the Complainant and the OP. So, the Complaint filed by the Complainant is not maintainable at all. He prays for dismissal of the complaint.

            According to section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Consumer means any person who-

            Buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose.

            In the instant case the Complainant did not buy any goods for consideration but he sold goods for consideration.

            In view of the above legal position, the Complainant is not a consumer to the OP. Hence the instant complaint case is liable to dismissed on contest.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 29.07.19 and admitted on 01.08.19. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.

In the result, the Consumer case fails.

Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is

Ordered

that the complaint Case No. CC/99/2019 be and the same is  dismissed on contest  against the OP without costs.

        Let plain copy of this order  be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand  /by post under proper acknowledgment  as per rules, for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

    confonet.nic.in

Dictated & corrected by me.

President

Member                                                                                      President.