1.                     The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that, he is self employed having a small business of hardware in the name and style “Arjun Hardware” at Borigumma and the OP.1 being the employee of OP.2 approached the complainant to sale Pidilite products in his shop to which the complainant agreed.  It is submitted that the OP.1 advised the complainant to deposit Rs.60, 000/- with OP.2 towards security deposit against which the OP.2 will supply Pidilite product of Rs.1.00 lac to the complainant and accordingly the complainant deposited Rs.60, 000/- through NEFT in the Andhra Bank on 27.05.2014.  It is further submitted that in spite of repeated approach the Ops are not supplying any material.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.60, 000/- with interest and to pay Rs.10, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     The Ops filed counter in joint denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that this case is not maintainable under C. P. Act as the complainant is not a consumer of the Ops.  It is also contended that the deposit of Rs.60, 000/- by the complainant on 27.5.2014 with OP-2 comes under the definition of commercial purpose which was adjusted in the accounts of M/s. Shyam Narayan Marketing.  It is further contended that by 05.05.2014 there was a liability of Rs.1, 19,360/- on Shyam Narayan Marketing and by transferring Rs.60, 000/- on 27.5.2014 the liability was reduced to Rs.59, 360/- but the allegation of the complainant that he had deposited the above amount as Security Deposit is false.  The Ops further contended that Sri Susanta Kumar Panda and Rajat Kumar Panda are two brothers and Proprietors of Arjun Hardware and Shyam Narayan Marketing respectively.  Shyam Narayan Marketing was taking materials from OP.2 to run the business till July, 2014 and Shyam Narayan Marketing used to pay to the OP.2 through NEFT from the accounts of Arjun Hardware with request to adjust the payment in the account of Shyam Narayan Marketing.  Accordingly, Rs.60, 000/- sent from the accounts of the complainant has been adjusted and the Ops had no business dealing in any manner with the present complainant.  Thus denying any deficiency in service on their part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant with costs.

3.                     Both the parties have filed certain documents along with affidavits in support of their cases.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.  The Ops filed written argument.

4.                     In this case, the allegation of the complainant is that he being approached by OP.1, deposited Rs.60, 000/- as Security Deposit on 27.5.14 in the accounts of OP.2 to receive Pidilite products worth Rs.1.00 lac but the Ops did not supply the materials in spite of payment.  The Ops denying the said allegations of the complainant submitted that the complainant has neither approached them for any business nor deposited any amount with them for supply of any product. The Ops disclosed that the brother of the complainant namely Rajat Kumar Panda is the Proprietor of M/s. Shyam Narayan Marketing and the complainant is the Proprietor of M/s. Arjun Hardware at Borigumma.  Narayan Marketing was doing business of Pidilite products and the complainant was managing the business of both the concerns.  On behalf of Shyam Narayan Marketing, Arjun Hardware was depositing amounts in the accounts of OP.2 which were being adjusted in the accounts of OP.2 against the outstanding bill of Shyam Narayan Marketing.  Similarly, a sum of Rs.60, 000/- had deposited from the accounts of Arjun Hardware on 27.5.2014 which was adjusted against the outstanding bill of Shayam Narayan Marketing and that amount was neither Security Deposit nor any advance taken from the complainant by the Ops.

5.                     Perused the copy of bank accounts filed by the Ops and found that from 08.10.13 to 27.5.2014 in as many as seven occasions, different amount has been paid to the Ops from the accounts of Arjun Hardware through NEFT and the payments were being adjusted against the outstanding bills of Shyam Narayan Marketing.  From this fact it was very much clear that Shyam Narayan Marketing had business with Ops but not of the complainant.  The complainant has not filed a scrap of paper to prove that he had any contract with the Ops and had deposited Rs.60, 000/- as Security Deposit.  The business practice as shown above clearly reveal that the complainant was paying money from his accounts on behalf of his brother who is the Proprietor of M/s. Shyam Narayan Marketing.  Therefore, it was a usual practice of the complainant to deposit money with the Ops on behalf of his brother but not for himself.

6.                     The complainant further stated that he is doing hardware business for self employment and is paying tax for sale and purchase.  Hence the complainant was purchasing goods not for use by himself exclusively for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of self employment but for business and profit.  Hence he is not coming within the definition of expression “Consumer”.

7.                     It is also further ascertained that the complainant has not filed any document stating that he had any business relation with the Ops and had deposit of S.D. amount for supply of goods by the Ops.  In view of above discussions, we do not find any merit in the case of the complainant, as he was not a consumer of the Ops.

8.                     In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant but without costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

(to dict.)