West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/89/2020

Suman Mondal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director, Haldiram Bhujiawala - Opp.Party(s)

Monalisa bandopadhay

30 Apr 2024

ORDER

            Today is fixed for passing order in respect of the petition on maintainability ground filed by the OP No. 1/Haldiram Bhujiawala, dated 15/09/2023. Copy of this petition also received by Ld. Advocate for complainant. Ld. Advocate for OP No. 1 is present. Also already heard Ld. Advocate for OP No. 1.

            The Ld. Advocate for complainant files a petition dated 19/03/2024 seeking for time for filing W/O. vehement objection was raised by the Ld. Advocate for OP No. 1.

            It appears from the case record that so many opportunities have been given to the complainant for filing W/O but the complainant did not file W/O even on 19/03/2024 alike previous dates. None appears on calls from complainant’s side to move this petition. Hence, the petition of the complainant is hereby rejected.

            One petition on maintainability ground has been filed by the OP No 1. The same has been registered as M.A. Case being No. 59/2024. Record is now taken up for passing order.

            Perused the petition. Considered. From the content of the petition it appears that the OP No. 1 intends to state that the instant case is not maintainable before this Commission as the dispute in question of this case is in no way consumer-related, as there was/is no consumer relation among the parties to this case.

           

 

The complainant stated in his complainant that he paid Rs. 1,70,000/ to OP No. 3 for purchasing food product of Haldiram Bhujiawala.

The complainant stated in his complaint as:

In Para 1 that “….the complainant through his firm are doing business in the various areas of Birbhum District.”

In Para 3 that “….after finalizing the business conversation, this complainant placed his order to the OP No. 3 as the OP No. 3 is the super stockiest of this area.”

In Para 5 that “….at the time of checking the products found that, maximum products are out of expiry date and some of the products are near to be expired, which cannot be sold in the retail market as there are several risk of public health.”

Thus, it appears from the petition of complaint that he ordered the said food product in question for sale in the retail market i.e. for commercial purpose. Complainant stated in his petition of complaint that he does business in the various areas of Birbhum District. The complainant has never stated in his petition of complaint that it is/was for his livelihood i.e. self employment purpose.

The complainant files a copy of Distributor Appointment Form of Haldiram Bhujiawala before this Commission. In this form the complainant/Suman Mondal put his signature dated 27/01/2019 and filled up this form as Firm status-Proprietorship, date of Establishment-2001, Year turnover Rs. 5 Lakh. No. of sales person 2, No. of delivery Boy.2, No. of delivery vehicles-.. His SBI Bank A/C credit limits Rs. 10 Lakh.

It appears from the Distributor Appointment Form that the complainant runs his business as a Distributor of Haldiram Bhujiawala i.e. fully commercial in nature. In the instant case, the complainant obtained such food product for resale or commercial purpose.

As per definition of ‘Consumer’, Sec. 2(1)(d)(i) of C.P. Act, 1986....“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 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; or(ii)hires or avails of any services 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 services 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 of such services for any commercial purpose;

Explanation.  For the purposes of this clause,"commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment;

Ld. Advocate for OP No. 1 cited a ruling in support of his case as:

In Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust v. Unique Shanti Developers, (2020) 2 SCC 265: (2020) 1 SCC (Civ) 320, explained and followed: “When a person avails a service for a commercial purpose, to come within the meaning of “consumer” as defined in the 1986 Act, he will have to establish that the services were availed exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. There cannot be any straitjacket formula and such a question will have to be decided in the facts of each case, depending upon the evidence placed on record.”

In the light of observation made by their lordship in the above decision we find us safe to follow them and apply the ratio in the present dispute.

In that analogy, we are sorry not to acceed to the prayer made by the complainant in this case. So, the case fails.

Hence, it is,

                        ORDERED,

                                                that the M.A. Case being No. 59/2024 is disposed of. The instant case being No. 89/2020 be and same is not maintainable before this Commission and dismissed without contest without any cost.

Copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost.