Brief fact of this case is that, the Complainant is the authorised agent and Executive of the business company Naarayani Minerals. The Company of the complainant proposed to install a self supporting mobile tower in its land at the Branch office at Barbil and doing their business all over India including the area of Barbil.For this purpose, complainant negotiated with OP No.2 India Mart who arranged and contacted with OP.No.1Shiva Enterprises to do the work of installation and the said OP.No.1 submitted the proforma invoice bearing No.59 dt.08.03.2019 to the Company of the complainant and the cost of bill was Rs.1,65,987/- and it is further said that 50% i.e. Rs.85,000/- of the costs to be paid in advance and the total work of installation will be completed within a very short period. The company of the complainant paid the advance amount of Rs.85,000/- in the Account of OP.No.1 vide A/C No.0641651100000417 in IDBI Bank,Anandanagar Branch,Pune,Maharastra through OP.3 UTR No.KKBKH-191447918112 dt.24.5.2019.After receiving the advance payment, the OP No.1 did not do any work even not responded to the company on repeated request and letters and even not responded the phone calls by the company of the complainant. Then the company informed the OP No.2 about non response of the OP.No.1, so the OP No.2 tried to make contact with OP No.1 several times and OP No.2 failed to get any response from OP.No.1. Finally finding no other way the company of the complainant send a notice through his Advocate to OP.No.1 giving ultimatum to return the amount of Rs.85,000/- given as advance with interest otherwise the company will take shelter of the Court for realisation of the amount with the cost of litigation. Though the OP.No.1 received the said notice but remained silent and notresponded till date. In the aforesaid circumstances, the complainant apprehensive and firmly believed that the OP.No.1 has cheated the company and by these action of the OP.No.1 not only suffered from mental agony also put to heavy financial loss and this is case due to deficiency of service. The OP.No.1 is liable to compensate the company of the complainant which is tentatively assessed as (1) Amount paid in advance of Rs.85,000/-, (2) Interest of Rs.5,000/-, (3) Cost of mental agony for Rs.10,000/-, (4) Financial loss of Rs.10,000/- and (5) cost of litigation of Rs.15,000/- comes to a total amount of Rs.1,25,000/-.Hence, prayed to the Commission to direct the OP.No.1 to pay Rs.1,25,000/- to the Company of the complainant within a stipulated period failing which further costs may be awarded till final payment.
The complainant relies upon the following documents:
- Invoice.
- Photocopy of Advance payment.
- Copy of Advocate’s notice with receipt.
- Authorisation to the complainant.
- Correspondence to the OP.No.1 and OP.No.2 by the company.
Under the above complain the case was admitted and notice issued to Ops. Written version was filed by OP No.2(herein referred to as the Answering OP). The OP.No.2 having registered office at1st Floor,29-Daryaganj,Netaji Subash Marg,Delhi who owns, operates and run the web site www.indiamart.com(the website submitted that the instant consumer complaint is ex-facie false, erroneous, misconceived and built on self serving assumptions and interpretations and the complainant have not approached this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands which deserve to be treated with judicial disdain and unqualified opprobrium.It is submitted that according to the complainant’s own admission the complainant wanted to install the self supporting mobile tower on its land for business purposes. Use of the goods and services for commercial purposes is not covered under the purview of section2 (1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. True fact is that the quotation was given by the OP.No.1 to the complainant and negotiation for the self supporting mobile tower entirely took place between the complainant and the OP.No.1 and during this act this OP has played no role hence no cause of action arose against this OP. The consideration amount was transferred in the Bank Account of OP.No.1.It may be noted that this OP.No.2 never approaches or solicits the complainant in respect to any products and/or services displaying on its website/platform, as the role of the OP No.2 to provide an online platform for displaying the information provided by the listed Suppliers/Sellers along with their products and services. It does not represent the seller or the buyer in transactions and does not charge any commission for enabling any transaction. User(s) agree that Indiamart Inter Mesh Ltd.(IIL) shall not be liable or responsible for any damages, liabilities, costs, harms, inconveniences, business disruptions or expenditures of any kind that may occur/arise as a result of or in connection with any transaction Risks. Further, OP.No.2 has no role in the actual transaction that took place between the complainant and OP.No.1.the role of OP.No.2 is only limited to act as a channel of advertising, just like any other print or digital media outfit. It is also submitted that the OP.No.2 as a goodwill gesture agreed to assist the complainant without assuming any legal responsibility or liability in relation thereto. The OP.No.2 made several efforts to solve the dispute that arose between the complainant and OP.No.1. It is submitted that in the entire complaint there is not a single allegation against the OP.No.2.the present complaint qua the OP.No.2 is baseless, without cause of action and not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. Hence prayed before the Hon’ble Forum to dismiss the present complaint qua the answering party as the same is baseless and not maintainable &awards the cost of the present proceedings in favour of the OP.No.2.
On the above pleadings the following issues are framed to decide the case.
- Whether the case is maintainable?
- Whether any cause of action arises on this case?
- Whether Ops have made any deficiency of service?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief sought for?
FINDINGS
All the issues are interlinked with each other .So they are discussed jointly to decide the case. It is a fact that the complainant has deposited Rs.85,000/- in favour of Shiv Enterprises, OP.No.1 for installation of self-supporting mobile tower over the land of the complainant having invoice No.59 dt.08.03.2019. In this case OP No.1 was set exparte due to non- appearance and non-filling of written version. It is also a fact that the said amount was deposited on the account of OP.No.1. vide A/C No.0641651100000417 in IDBI Bank, Anandanagar Branch, Pune, Maharastra through OP.3 UTR No.KKBKH-191447918112 dt,24,5,2019. In this case OP No.3 was also set exparte but there is no specific allegation against the Op.No.3. Op.No.2 India Mart Corporate Office has strongly denied the allegation against him. It is a public Ltd. Company incorporated under Companies Act 1956 and online B2B market place through its website for information and advertise are displayed. As per Sec.2(I)(d) of CP Act,1986 the present complainant does not fall under the definition ‘Consumer’ because this party has not received any payment from the complainant. In paragraph 1 of the complaint petition the complainant has admitted that the Narayani Minerals is a business company having branch office in different parts of India including one branch at Barbil. So the business of company is purely commercial who is not coming under the purview of C.P.Act.1986.
Under the above situation this Commission the complainant petition is not maintainable.Hence the cause of action does not arise in this case.
ORDER
The complaint case being devoid of merits is dismissed without any cost.
