Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/33/2021

Hanumantharaya s/o Mahalingappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager,Balaji Agro foods, - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.Dheerendraprasad

28 Jun 2021

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:28/04/2021

DISPOSED      ON:28/06/2021

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHITRADURGA.

CC.NO:33/2021

DATED: 28^th  June 2021

PRESENT: -     Smt. H.N. MEENA. B.A., LL.B.    PRESIDENT

                                Sri. G. SREEPATHI, B.COM., LL.B.   MEMBER   

                        Smt. B.H. YASHODA.    B.A., LL.B.    MEMBER

                      

                                                      

…COMPLAINANT/S	Sri. Hanumathraya S/o Mahalingappa, Aged about 40 years, Proprietor of Sri Mailaralingeswara Traders, Challakere Main Road Parusuram Village, Challakere Tq.,   (Rep., by Sri. Dheerendraprasad, Advocate)
V/S
….OPPOSITE PARTY/S	Manager Balaji Agro Foods, E-14, Site C, UPSIDC Industrial area Sikandra, Agra, Uttar Pradesh State-282007.

 

BY SRI G. SREEPATHI, MEMBER.

:ORDER ON ADMISSIBILITY OF COMPLAINT:

1.     The complainant has filed this complaint against Op and prays before this Commission to pass Judgement and award or grant of compensation against Op for a sum Rs. 5,00,000/- with 18% interest from the date of agreement till realization and such other reliefs.

        The brief facts of the complaint are:

2.     Complainant is a unemployee searching work at that time, during the month of April-2020 one Company by name Hindu Beverage Company offered him to distribute his Company product in entire Chitradurga District. The Op is manufacturing and supplying Company, having its various types of beverages under the name of Hindu beverages having office and manufacturing Unit at Industrial area, Agra, U.P.

3.     Complainant and Op entered into an agreement on 12/04/2020 after accepting the offer and as alleged by complainant the contents of agreement are in Hindi and why not in English and he has taken his contention that only on believing the words of Op he has signed in the agreement which is not relevant. It is presumed that once complainant has entered into agreement and signed means he knows entire contents of agreement and raising any point against the same is not admissible.

4.     Complainant states that he place huge Orders on 08/05/2020 worth Rs. 3,97,999/- vide E-Bill No.491117509595 and Op dispatched various products, cool drinks mango 600 ml, dated of manufacture 19/03/2020, Mango 160 ml date of manufacture 29/02/2020 and cool drinks, expiry period for cool drinks usually was 6 months. Complainant alleges that two products already completed 3 months and complained against marketing executive manager and also sales manager. Even after request made by complainant Op’s have not responded properly.

5.     Complainant alleges Op that they have appointed another agency without any information and without terminating complainant Agency and he has questioned the same. In the meantime complainant supplied the said products to D.M.P. Agencies of Hindupura, Sri Shashavali and alleged that they have not paid full amount till date complainant issued Legal notice for which Ops have given reply by denying all facts.

6.     On perusal of entire facts of complaint which Cleary discloses that the products purchased are not for own consumption of complainant and the same is for further distribution for sale.

7.     Such being the reason, Complainant is not coming under definition of consumer under consumer protection Act 2019, No. 35 of 2019.

        (7) “Consumer means any person who:-

        (i) 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 use 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: or

        (ii) hires or avails of any service 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 beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails such service for any commercial purpose.

        The Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, in a case of Mahesh Kumar–Petitioner V/s M/s Shubhankar marketing pvt., limited and others-Respondents, reported in CPR 2016(2) Page No.865 (NC), it is observed that Commercial users con’t maintain consumer complaint.

        Further cases referred. 1) Laxmi Engineering works V/s P.S.G. Industrial Institute. (1995) 3 SCC 583 (para-11).

2) Cheema Engineering Services V/s Rajan Singh, (1997) 1 SCC 131: (1997) 1 Supreme 51. (Para -12).

8.     Hence as discussed above, the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission and accordingly we proceed to pass the following:-

                                        ORDER

        The Complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable before this commission for adjudication on maintainability and hence the same is rejected.

(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by the him, corrected and then pronounced by us on 28/06/2021)

 

 

LADY MEMBER               MEMBER                 PRESIDENT