COMPLAINT FILED ON: 23/12/2022

DISPOSED ON: 06/01/2023

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHITRADURGA.

CC.NO:191/2022

DATED: 06^th January 2023

PRESENT: - Kum. 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

:ORDERS ON MAINTAINABILITY OF COMPLAINT:

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

Complainant has filed this compliant under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against opposite party No.1 to 3 and prays before this commission to pass orders by directing OP’s No.1 to 3 for making payment of Rs.93,117/- towards refund of CGST and SGST amount along with 24% interest per annum, Rs.50,000/- towards damages for mental agony and distress and Rs.10,000/- towards legal and litigation Cost and such other reliefs as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Commission.

2. Facts in Brief :

The complainant states in his complaint that, he is a civil contractors and suppliers of Civil and Sanitary Materials to various Government departments in Karnataka. He is running business in the name and style of Sri Sai Ram Contractors under GST No.29AJUPD0152E1ZE at said address in Hosadurga.  He states that he has supplied various sanitary and other civil materials to OP-3 on 07/03/2020 at their Karwar site against GST Bills vide No.601/7-3-20 to 605/07-03-2020 for total amount of Rs.5,33,548/- including CGST and SGST of Rs.93,117/-. Further complainant states that while settling the bills, the above opposite parties have settled an amount of Rs.4,40,433/- instead of Rs.5,33,548/- by withholding CGST and SGST amount of Rs.93,117/- without any valid reason. In the entire facts of the complaint, complainant re-iterated regarding refund of CGST and SGST amount of Rs.93,117/- and stated that on approaching OP’s during different dates and also on sending letters they have not settled the same. With this it is the contention of the complainant that, he has faced service deficiency, mental agony apart from unnecessary expenses due to negligent act of OP’s No.1 to 3. Hence this complaint has been filed before this Hon’ble Commission seeking prayer as prayed in his complaint.

3. On going through the complaint, it is necessary for us to observe the point regarding the aspect that whether the complainant is a consumer with in the definition of Section 2 (7) of the consumer protection act, 2019 and whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of opponents. On perusal of the facts of the complaint which clearly discloses that complainant is not a consumer. Complainant is a contractor and supplied civil and sanitary materials to various Government departments which is purely for making profit on trading basis. Complainant has not paid any consideration to the opponents for obtaining service.

As per section 2 (7) of consumer Protection Act, 2019 ‘Consumer means any person…..

i) buy 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 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 service are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.

‘Commercial purpose’ means…..

        A person who buys goods for resale or commercial purposes or avails service for commercial purposes is specifically excluded from the definition of “consumer”.

In view of the decision in  a case between Lakshmi Engineering Works Vs P.S.G. Industrial Institute, reported in 1995 AIR SCW 2114-AIR 1995 SC1428 (1995)(3) SCC 583-84 Comp Cas 121 (SC), has defined the word…

 “Commercial” as connected with or engaged in commerce having profit as the main aim. Any person buying goods for purpose of being used in any activity on a large scale for making profit is not a “Consumer”. Apart from this complainant filed this complaint seeking refund of CGST and SGST amount as the same is withholded  by the opposite parties which is not coming under the purview of C.P. Act.

4. On the above said grounds the complainant is not covered under the definition of consumer under consumer Protection Act and also not faced any deficiency of service from the opponents.  

5. In view of the discussion made above 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 hereby rejected.

(Dictated to the stenographer, and typed in the Computer and   transcribed by him, verified   

and then pronounced in the Open commission by us on 6^th day of January 2023).

LADY MEMBER        MEMBER               PRESIDENT

GM*