BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Monday the 30th day of March, 2009.
C.C.No. 23/09
Between:
G.Suryanarayana Setty ,
S/o. Late G.Allaiah Setty,
H.No.5/381, B.S.Colony,
Yemmiganur ,
Kurnool District. … Complainant
Versus
M.Viswanath Setty ,
S/o.M.Virupanna Setty,
Dealer in Puja Articles and other business also,
Near Panchamukhi Temple,
H.No.1-132,
Ganadhal – 584 140,
Raichoor District ,
Karnataka.
… Opposite party
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the
presence of Sri. N. Ramachandra , Advocate, for the complainant, and
opposite party is called absent set-exparte and upon perusing the
material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Smt. C.Preethi, Lady Member)
C.C.No.23/09
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed U/S 12 of C.P.
Act, 1986 seeking direction on the opposite parties to pay a sum of
Rs.70,000/- , cost of the case and any other relief or relief’s which the
complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainants case is that the complainant is
the owner of a Rice Mill who is doing business by hulling paddy on
commission basis. On 06-02-2007 the opposite party approached the
complainant during business hours at the rice mill at Yemmiganur and
sought for financial accommodation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for the
purchase of paddy. As the opposite party is an old customer and use to get
his paddy hulled in the complainants rice mill , the complainant paid
Rs.50,000/- and obtained a note signed by him. But the opposite party
neither brought the paddy for hulling purpose nor paid back Rs..50,000/-
and on the other hand is evading whenever the complainant is confronted .
The above conduct of opposite party amounting to unfair trade and hence
the complainant resorted to the forum for reliefs.
3. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the
complainant the opposite party remained absence through out the case
proceedings and were made ex-parte.
4. In support of his case the complainant relied on the following
documents viz, (1) debit voucher dated 06-02-2007 and (2) office copy of
legal notice dated 10-10-2007 along with returned cover , besides to the
sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint averments
and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 and A2 for its appreciation
in this case.
5. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant
is entitled to:-
6. It the case of the complainant that he is doing business by hulling
of paddy on commission basis and on 06-02-2007 the opposite party
approached complainant at his rice mill at Yemmiganur for financial help
and the complainant paid Rs.50,000/- to the opposite party on a promise
that the opposite party will get his paddy hulled in complainants rice mill or
return Rs.50,000/- with 2% interest but neither the paddy was hulled nor
paid back Rs.50,000/- . The complainant obtained a note signed by the
opposite party dated 06-02-2007 vide Ex.A1 as to t h e receipt o f
Rs.50,000/- by him.
7. The complainant alleges that vide Ex.A1 the opposite party
received Rs.50,000/- from the complainant for hulling his paddy in his rice
mill on condition that if is not hulled, pay back the amount with 2% interest
per month. On perusal on Ex.A1 , it appears that the Ex.A1 is a debit
voucher dated 06-02-2007 signed by the opposite party as to the receipt of
Rs.50,000/- towards interest at Rs.2% per month, the version of
complainant and the particulars mentioned in Ex.A1 are different, there is
no mention in Ex.A1 that the said amount was given to opposite party for
hulling his paddy in complainants rice mill. Hence, it cannot be said that the
said amount was given by complainant to opposite party for hulling paddy
at his rice mill.
8. From the Ex.A1 debit voucher what appears is that Rs.50,000/-
was paid by the complainant to opposite party towards interest at 2% per
month and there appears no consumer relationship between the
complainant and opposite party and the said grievance of the complainant
cannot be dealt in a consumer fora.
9. A person to come under the ambit of C.P.Act must be a consumer.
Consumer under the C.P.Act is
( a) a person who purchase goods or services for consideration.
(b) a person who uses such good or services with the consent of the buyer.
10. A person who buys goods or avails services for commercial
purposes is not a consumer for the purpose of this Act. The complainant in
this case paid Rs.50,000/- to the opposite party to pay back it with 2%
interest, this transaction between the complainant and opposite party is
clearly amounting to commercial purpose . Hence, the complainants case
does not come within the ambit of C.P.Act.
11. As the nature of the grievances of the complainant is not
amounting to any consumer disputes entertainable under C.P.Act by this
District Fora and if at all there is any default of the opposite party is not
returning the said amount is a civil disputes adjudicable by Civil Court alone
and the complainant is not remaining entitled to any of the reliefs sought
under C.P.Act.
12. In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced
by us in the open bench on this the 30th day of March, 2009.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Debit voucher dated 06-02-2007.
Ex.A2. Office copy of legal notice dated 10-10-2007 along
With postal receipts and returned cover.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties: Nil
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on
