The case of the complainant in brief is that he is a bonafide business man of the locality and his reputation is very sound in the field of business.

            The complainant deals with salts in a very large spare of the locality and the adjacent area of Pandua PS jurisdiction.  The complainant purchased salt products from the O.Ps. for last five years.  The complainant regularly paid the amount of salt to the O.Ps.

            The petitioner purchased salt from O.Ps. as packet basis.  Each and every packet contents 500 grams of salt as per specification and the quantity affixed in the packet.  Similarly the petitioner purchased bag basis each and every bag contents 25 Kg of salt as stated on the bag. 

       The packet and bags sent by the O.Ps. through carrier to the business place of the complainant and it was unloaded. From the last few months the allegations are coming from the purchaser and retail shop owners that the products are not equal to the quantity of the packet and the bags of the salt which are written or affixed in front of the bag or the packet.  In every sealed packet shows there are 500 grams of salt is kept.  Similarly each and every bag contents 25Kgs. of salt.  The petitioner is answerable to the customer and the retail shop owners as regards the deficit of salt of each packet and the bags.

       The customer severely raised their voice against the petitioner and the reputation of the petitioner is hampered seriously. The petitioner is considered by the local shop owners as cheat, committed theft in respect of the quantity of the salt purchased from the O.Ps. and written allegation was submitted by different businessmen and customers those who have purchased  sealed packet and the sealed bags to the local Babasayee Samity,

        The petitioner has been suffering from severe mental pain and agony.  The petitioner caused monetary loss and at present the business of complainant is placed under question of trust, faith and reputation.  More than 17 shop owner declined to pay the dues to the petitioner those who have purchase salt packet and bags from the complainant of the brand of O.Ps. due to shortage of quantity of the salt.  A sum of Rs.1,62,000/- is remaining due in market which the petitioner could not realize from the shop owners due to the act of the O.Ps.

            The complainant sent lawyer’s notice to the O.Ps. on 05.01.2017.  The said notice was received by the O.Ps. on 06.01.2017 but no action was taken.  Finding no other alternative the complainant filed this case before this Forum for relief with a direction to the O.Ps. to pay Rs.1,62,000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony, to pay Rs.2,50,000/- for loss in the business and to pay litigation cost.

            The O.Ps. contested this case by filing written version denying all the material allegations as leveled against them.  The O.Ps. submit that the complainant did not purchase the salt from the O.P.s for his own consumption, so he is not a consumer.  The answering O.Ps delivered the salt on good faith but the complainant failed, neglected and refused the payment amounting to Rs.1,74,836/-.  So, the O.Ps. sent a legal notice for getting the due amount.  To avoid and escape from legal liability of Rs.1,74,836/- the complainant served a demand notice upon the O.Ps claiming Rs.4,12,000/-.  According to version of the O.P.s the complainant is a dishonest businessman and he has misappropriated a sum of Rs.1,74,836/- payable to the O.ps.  The O.ps. further averred that the salt delivered to the complainant, weight of each and bags were correct as mentioned thereon and being satisfied the deliveries were accepted by the complainant without any objection or claimed.  But the allegation of the packet and bags being under weight are totally false, fabricated, baseless and concocted and after delivery the O.P.s are not liable for any happening.  The complainant filed the instant case putting the O.Ps. into pressure so that the O.Ps may leave their claim of Rs.1,74,836/-.  As such the complaint petition is liable to be rejected with cost. 

            The complainant filed evidence on affidavit in which he stated that he has been purchasing salt from the O.P. of 500 gram packet in a 25 Kg. bags and paying regularly.  The O.P. used to supply the salt through lorry in the business place of the complainant.  Gradually it is noticed by the complainant that the quantum of each packet of salt reduced by 50 gram.  As a result near about 2 Kg. salt are less supplied in each 25 Kg. bags.  So, the complainant faced a lot of problem in the locality where he used to supply that salt.  That a few business man also filed complaint before the Babsayee Samity against this complainant regarding the less supply of salt in each sealed packet.  For which the reputation of this complainant hampered and the business man refused to pay the cost of salt to this complainant on the charge of less supply.  He informed the matter to the O.P. but O.P. took no measure for which this complainant compelled to prefer the recourse of this Forum praying for direction uponthe O.P. as stated in the prayer portion of the complaint petition.  The complainant denied the pleas taken by the O.P. in the written version in respect of due lies before the O.P. amounting to Rs.1,74,836/- only.  The O.P. filed evidence on affidavit in which is nothing but the replica of written version. 

Both sides filed affidavit in chief and written notes of arguments which are taken into consideration during the passing of final order.

The argument as advanced by the advocates of the parties heard in full.

From the discussion herein above, we find the following Issues/Points for consideration.

ISSUES/POINTS   FOR   CONSIDERATION

1). Whether the Complainant Sk. Suraj Ali is a ‘Consumer’ of the Opposite Party?

 2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

3).Whether the OPs carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?

4).Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

DECISION WITH REASONS

 In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.

(1).Whether the Complainant Sk. Suraj Ali is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?

     From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. As the complainant being the customer of O.P. used to purchase salt in bulk quantity and sell those salts in his locality for self employment and livelihood.  Opposite Party being the seller of the salt is responsible provide service to its consumer.  So, there is a relationship accrued in between the complainant and the seller as consumer and seller.

(2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

     Both the complainant and opposite party are residents/carrying on business within the district of Hooghly. The complaint valued within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.  

 (3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?

The case of the complainant is that he used to purchase salt from the O.P. and sell those salts in the local areas of the complainant and from the profit he used to maintain his family. The business continues for a prolonged period. Dispute cropped up in between the parties when the complainant alleged that the quantum of supplied salts in packet is less than the marked quantity.  As a result his reputation in the local area has hampered and a huge amount of money is due in the market as the business/shop owners refused to pay the due amount for supplying less quantity.  Complainant informed the matter to the O.P. regarding such less quantity in 500 gram packet of salt in a bag of 25 Kg. but the O.P. remained silent at the utterance of the complainant.  So, the complainant filed the instant complaint petition before this Forum.  The opposite party filed written version, evidence on affidavit and written argument denying the allegations leveled against him.  He further averred that to escape from his liability to pay the balance amount due before the O.P. amounting to Rs.1,74,836/- the complainant filed the instant complaint praying for direction upon the O.P. to pay Rs.4,12,000/-.  According to O.P. the allegation is totally vague and concocted story.  Whatsoever may  it be there is no iota of evidence in the case record from which we can infer that the O.P. supplied less quantity of salt in each packet corresponding to each bag.  Only from the averment of the complaint petition as well as evidence it is difficult to say that the quantum of salt was less in quantity.  There is no report from Legal Metrology Department or from any other Government Organization to ascertain the quantity of salt supplied to this complainant by the O.P.  So, this Forum is in dark regarding the impugned quantity of salt packet. This Forum being a social legislation is empowered to adjudicate the matter in which the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice committed by the traders and business man.  The complainant demanded that he suffered a huge loss by selling the salt supplied by this O.P. in less quantity.  On the other hand the O.P. in his evidence on affidavit stated that to avoid the payment of Rs.1,74,836/- the complainant filed the complaint petition.  This forum is not concerned regarding the collection of dues vice versa. 

      From the above discussion this Forum is in the opinion that the complainant failed to establish his case by producing sufficient evidence regarding the unfair trade practice and deficiency of service of this O.P. The complaint case has no leg to stand as such it is deserved to be rejected.

4). Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

     The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the complainant failed to prove his case. So the Opposite Party is not liable to pay any compensation to this complainant. 

ORDER

     Hence, ordered that the complaint case being No.79/2017 be and the same is dismissed on contest.

 The opposite party is exonerated from this case.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information & necessary action.