Orissa

Cuttak

CC/287/2023

M/s Dalai Impex - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director(Mr Nagraj),UCEE Vehicle Manufacturing Private ltd - Opp.Party(s)

self

12 Dec 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.287/2023

 

M/s. Dalai Impex

Sukanta Kumar Dalai,

S/o: Late Gopal Dalai,

At/PO:Gatiroutpatana,

P.S:Chauliaganj,Dist:Cuttack.                                             …. Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

The Managing Director(Mr. Nagaraj),

UCEE-Vehicle Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd.,

M/s. Usha Communicatiions & Enterprises,

                         TT/1,M.I.D.C,Dhule,Maharastra-424005.                 ….Opp.Party.

 

 

Present:           Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                    Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

             Date of filing:     21.08.2023

Date of Order:   12.12.2023

 

For the complainant:           Self.

For the O.P.                :           None.

.

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member                  

          The case of the complainant in short is that the O.P, M/s. Usha Communications and Enterprises had made an advertisement in the daily Oriya Newspaper for the dealership of its products i.e. Electric vehicle in short (E.V) in Odisha.  In pursuant to the said advertisement of O.P, the complainant had deposited refundable advance money of Rs.1,00,000/- by 12.06.2020 in two phases with him.  It is stated by the complainant that after deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- by him, the O.P issued letter of sub-dealership in his favour.  It is stated by the complainant that due to outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic, the complainant faced severe financial crisis and for which he was unable to proceed further for sub-dealership and decided to withdraw from the sub-dealership of O.P.  Thereafter, the complainant stated to have sent e-mail to the O.P on 17.10.2020 requesting him for cancellation of its sub-dealership and refund of advance money of Rs.1,00,000/-.  It is further stated by the complainant that on 30.10.2020 the O.P replied to his letter and asked him to wait for some period.  Thereafter, it is stated by the complainant that O.P did not refund his advance money.  Hence, he had gone physically to the O.P, contacted over telephone as well as by way of several  e.mails requesting him to refund his advance money but the O.P did not refund the same.  As the O.P did not refund his advance money, the complainant had approached Consumer Counselling Centre,Cuttack and submitted an application for redressal of his grievances which did not yield any result.  Thereafter, the complainant has filed the present case with a prayer for a direction to the O.P to refund the advance money of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of receipt till the realisation of the same.  The complainant has also prayed for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards his mental agony and harassment as well as a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards cost of his litigation.

          In order to prove his case, the complainant has filed copies of some documents alongwith his complaint petition.

2.       Having not preferred to contest this case, the O.P has been set exparte vide order dt.29.09.2023.

3.       The points for determination in this case are as follows:

i.          Whether the complainant is a consumer under the C.P.Act ?

ii.         Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P?

iv.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Points no.i,ii & iii.

Out of the four points, points no.i,ii & iii  are taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

The complainant applied for dealership in pursuant to the advertisement by the manufacturer i.e. O.P who manufactures Electric Vehicles by depositing Rs.1,00,000/- towards refundable advance money.  It is alleged by the complainant that due to his financial hardship he did not want the dealership from the O.P and wanted refund of his refundable advance/security money.  It is well settled in law that non-refund of security money does not come under the purview of the C.P.Act.  So also in the present case, the dealings between the complainant and O.P being commercial in nature, the present dispute does not come under the purview of the C.P.Act.    The complainant has relied upon a decision dt.1.10.2019 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Kohli & Anr. Vs, M/s. Purearth Infrastructure Ltd. passed in Civil Appeal Nos.9004-9005/2018 which is not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of this case.  As such the complainant being not a consumer under the C.P.Act, the present case is not maintainable.  Hence, question of deficiency of service on the part of the O.P does not arise.

Point no.iv.

From the discussions as made above, the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence, it is so ordered;

                                              ORDER

Case is dismissed exparte against O.P and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 12^th day of December,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.         

                                                                     

                                                                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                      Member

                                                                                                                     

                                                                        Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                          President