Karnataka

Chikmagalur

CC/26/2017

V.P Sundresh, Industrial Estate, Jyothinagara, Chikmagalur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mr. Kantharaju P, Byatarayanapura, Bangalore - Opp.Party(s)

M.N. Sathish

19 May 2017

ORDER

District Consumer Forum,Hosmane Extension, Near IB, Chikmagalur-577 101
CAUSELIST
 
Complaint Case No. CC/26/2017
 
1. V.P Sundresh, Industrial Estate, Jyothinagara, Chikmagalur
Chikmagalur
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Mr. Kantharaju P, Byatarayanapura, Bangalore
Bangalore
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Ravishankar PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MS. H. Manjula Mahesh MEMBER
 HON'BLE MS. Geetha MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:M.N. Sathish, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 19 May 2017
Final Order / Judgement

Complaint filed on: 05.05.2017

Complaint Disposed on:25.05.2017

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.

 

COMPLAINT NO.26/2017

 

DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF MAY 2017

:PRESENT:

HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT

HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., -MEMBER

HON’BLE SMT H. MANJULA, B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER

 

 

COMPLAINANT:

V.P.Sundaresh S/o Puttegowda V.S.,

Aged about 40 years, Businessman,

Sri.Karibasaveshwara Traders, Industrial

Estate, Jyothinagar Post-577102.

K.S.S.I.D.C., K.M. Road, Chikmagalur.

 

(By Sri/Smt. M.N.Sathish, Advocate)

 

                     V/s

 

OPPONENT:

Mr.Kantharaju P S/o B.C. Prabhu,

No.21/29/1, 1 main road, V cross,

Byatarayanapura, Mysore Road,

Bengalur-560026. Karnataka State.

Also R/o No.51, 25th Main, 80th cross,

Opp: Vijaya Bank, Girinagara Road,

Bengaluru-560085.

 

By Hon’ble President Sri. Ravishankar,

                               

:ORDERS ON ADMISSION:

The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OP alleging unfair trade practice/deficiency in service in not supplying the booked materials. Hence, prays for direction against Op to pay Rs.59,000/- principal amount along with Rs.30,000/- damages and other miscellaneous charges in the interest of justice and equity.

2.  Heard the arguments on admission.

3.     On going through the pleadings and documents filed by complainant and after hearing the arguments from learned advocate for complainant, we noticed that the complainant had filed a complaint for deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of Op in not supplying the materials such as plastic fabrics, HDP bags and vegetable packing bags, which the complainant has regularly having transactions since 2013. Such being the case, the complainant had as usual ordered for above raw materials for his business and after booking the complainant has transferred an amount of Rs.59,000/- through NEFT/SBMY 6160028761056 to the account of Op on 28.01.2016 and waited for delivery of the above booked materials, but till today the materials were not sent by Op, inspite of repeated requests also Op has not made any attempts to deliver the said materials to the complainant for his business purposes. Hence, Op rendered a deficiency in service/unfair trade practice in not supplying the booked raw materials to the complainant.

        Finally complainant issued a legal notice and called upon the Op to deliver the said raw materials. For which Op assured that the materials will be delivered at the short period. Subsequently, the Op expressed his inability to provide the booked materials to the complainant and assured to return the said amount of Rs.59,000/- to the complainant as early as possible. But Op till today has not returned the said amount, due to which complainant suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs.30,000/-. Hence, prays for direction against Op to refund the said amount along with compensation and other miscellaneous expenses.

4. But we are of the opinion that the complainant here had booked the raw materials such as plastic fabrics, HDP bags and vegetable packing bags from Op for his business purposes. The complainant has categorically stated in the pleadings that he is running a business by selling the said materials. Hence, we found that the complainant is also seller of the products which were supplied by Op, here the transaction took place between the complainant and Op is nothing but a seller and seller transaction. There is no relationship of consumer and seller in this case. Hence, complaint is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act. We found there is no reason to issue notice to Op with respect to the commercial transaction between them. Hence, the complaint is dismissed as not maintainable.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by him, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 25th day of May 2017).

 

 

                           (RAVISHANKAR)

                                   President

 

 

(B.U.GEETHA)                                         (H. MANJULA) 

     Member                                                    Member   

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Ravishankar]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MS. H. Manjula Mahesh]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MS. Geetha]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.