1. This is a case of alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opp. Party.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant is that searching job for earning his livelihood by means of self employment, he came in contact with one Sri Niranjan Mohapatro, the marketing person of Opp. Parties who are in the business of herbal tea products, and as per his advise, he deposited Rs. 1,20,000/- towards security amount in two times @ Rs. 60,000/- each on dated 31.08.2020 in favour of the O.P. No. 2 and on 09.12.2020 he deposited an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rs. 4,00,000/- + Rs. 2,00,000/-) in favour of the O.P. No. 1 with an assurance of avail discount of 40% on the entire bill amount. The allegations of complainant is that though he received the products from the O.Ps as per his order placed, but on receipt of the products and bill/invoice, he found that the discount was made for 24% instead of 40% and as per his version, the said act is violation of their agreement made between both parties and on discussion with O.Ps. he transferred the products to M/s Bhagyalaxmi Trader at Bhubaneswar and till date no further herbal products were supplied by the O.Ps and several approaches and correspondences in this regard, got in vein.Thus suffering from mental agony and financial loss, he filed this case claiming the refund of total deposited amount of Rs. 7,20,000/- alongwith 2,00,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation and costs from the O.Ps.

3. O.P. No.1 appeared through their Ld. Counsel, filed their counter version admitting the deposit of Rs. 6,00,000/- with them by the complainant but denied the other allegations stating that complainant is not a consumer as the transaction belongs to commercial purpose and challenge the territorial jurisdiction of the Commission to try over the case and with other submissions, they prayed to dismiss the case.

4. Notice sent to O.P. No.2 received back unserved with a postal remark as “addressee not found (written in hindi language), whereas the notice was sent to their address as mentioned in the agreement and also the O.P. No.1 admitted that the O.P. No. 2 is residing in the said address.  Hence we think, the O.P. No. 2 intentionally avoiding the receipt the notice and we held the serve of notice valid.

5. Heard from the complainant as well as the A/R for O.P. No.1. Perused the record and documents available therein.

6. From the record and submissions of the parties, it is ascertained that the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs. 60,000/- twice i.e. Rs. 1,20,000/- through NEFT dated 31.08.2020 in favour of the O.P. No.2 which was also received by them.  Complainant filed document to that effect.  Further ascertained that complainant has remitted an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rs. 4,00,000/- + Rs. 2,00,000/-) on 09.12.2020 and on 23.12.2020 respectively through RTGS in favour of the O.P. No. 1.  Complainant also filed document to that effect.  O.P. No. 1 also admitted in their counter version that they have received the Rs. 6,00,000/- in toto from the complainant.  So there is no dispute regarding remittance of Rs. 6,00,000/- in favour of the O.P. No. 1.  Further as per the statement of account dated 05.09.2020 issued by ICICI Bank being filed by the complainant, it is well proved that the complainant has remitted an amount of Rs. 60,000/- twice i.e. Rs. 1,20,000/- in favour of the O.P. No.2.  It is also evident from the submissions of the parties, complaint petition, counter version and documents that inspite of the O.Ps have received the entire amount but no product was supplied to the complainant.  It is also evident from the record that the complainant made correspondences to avail the service from the O.Ps, but no action taken by the O.Ps and the said act of O.Ps clearly proves the deficiency in service.
    
7. Further as per the version of O.P. No.1, we would like to make it clear that as per provision laid under Section 34(2)(d) the C.P.Act, 2019 does not debar the complainant to institute his claim before this Commission and this Commission has ample jurisdiction to try the dispute.  Further as per the versions of O.P. No.1 regarding the ambit of consumer of the complainant, we herewith make it clear that though the O.P. No.1 raised such dispute but to prove their version, they have not file any single document to show that the entire transaction was only meant for commercial business, but have miserably overlooked that the complainant has not started any business till yet though he has paid the entire amount as required by the O.Ps.  Hence we do not think that the versions of O.P. No. 1 contain any merit.

8. Further as per the submissions of complainant, it is observed that complainant has preferred such business only for earning livelihood by means of self employment and he was assured by the O.Ps accordingly.  It is also ascertained that though the O.P. No. 1 has dispatched the alleged products to the complainant, which was not as per the agreement made between them and complainant transfer the same to another party at Bhubaneswar and thereafter the O.P. No.1 kept silent.  In our view, the assurance given by the O.Ps is only goes on negative side, which must have caused severe mental agony and financial loss to the complainant, for which the complainant entitled for some compensation.  Considering the facts and circumstances, we feel complainant is entitled to get back his deposited amount with a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards compensation and costs from the O.Ps.  Hence this order.

                                                                                                                      ORDER

            The complaint petition is allowed in part.  Opp. Parties are herewith directed to refund the deposited amount with them to the complainant with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of deposit on their respective parts till the date of this order alongwith Rs. 30,000/- towards compensation and costs for causing mental agony and financial loss to the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of this order, failing which, deposited amount with the respective Opp. Party shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of deposit till actual payment.

            Pronounced in the open Court on this the      day of November, 2022.  Issue free copy to the parties concerned.