IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 16thday of December, 2021
Filed on 27.12.2018
Present
1. Sri.S.Santhoshkumar.Bsc.LLB(President)
2. Smt. Sholly.P.R ,LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.332/2018
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Smt. Usha.T.V, 1. Mr. MurukeshMuraleedharan
Proprietor M/s Alpha Associates, TANA
Niravu Food Products Irinjalakkuda, Trissur Dist.
Pazhaveedu.P.O,Alappuzha Pin 680125
Pin -688009 (Adv.Sri.E.B.SureshBabu)
(Adv. Sri. V.Deepak) 2. Mr. Sujith
M/s Union Trading Corporation
Vaduthala, Kochi-682023
(Exparte)
3. Sri. IsakNazar, Managing Director M/s Southern Health Foods Pvt. Ltd 129,Z Block(Plot-1160) 6th Ave
Anna Nagar, Chennai-600040
(Exparte)
O R D E R
SMT. SHOLLY.P.R(MEMBER)
Complaint filed u/s 12 of the consumer Protection Act, 1986.
1. Brief facts of complaint in short are as follows:-
Complainant is a distributor of food products in the name and style “Niravu food products.” On October 2015 the officers of M/s Southern Health Food Pvt. Ltd, Chennai, approached the complainant for distributing their food products through his business concern and thereby the complainant had bought their products. M/s Alpha Associates at Irinjalakkuda was its stockiest. It was promised by the officers of the Southern Health Food Pvt. Ltd that their marketing officers would be done all the necessary steps for selling the products since those products were not common in Kerala especially at Alappuzha region. But they were not comply their promise and the complainant could not sell the said products. Thereafter as agreed by the company and stockiest the balance products was returned. The company prepared a settlement letter on 20/3/2017 regarding the amount liable to be refunded to the complainant, but the company or the stockiest not returned the said amount to the complainant. They were evaded from the refund of amount by blaming each other. Hence the complainant filed this complaint for realizing an amount of Rs. 77,735/- along with interest and compensation for mental agony for Rs.20,000/- from the opposite parties.
In response to the notice 1st opposite party filed version. 2nd and 3rd opposite party remained exparte.
2. Brief statement of version of 1st opposite party is as follows:-
Complaint is not maintainable and not come within the jurisdiction of this Commission. Complainant is not a consumer since the goods were purchased for his business purpose. 1st opposite party is having no knowledge about the transaction between the complainant and 2nd and 3rd opposite party. The statement of providing necessary assistance from the part of marketing officers for selling the product itself reveals that the opposite party is not a necessary party in this complaint. There was no deficiency in service from the part of 1st opposite party and hence the complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs as sought in the complaint from the 1st opposite party. Hence the complaint may be dismissed.
3. On the above pleadings points raised for consideration are:-
1. Whether the complainant is a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief sought for in the complaint from the opposite parties?
3. Reliefs and costs?
Evidence consists in this complaint is proof affidavit filed by the complainant along with 3 documents, marked as Ext.A1 to A3. Opposite parties 2 and 3 were set exparte at the early stage of the trial. Even though the 1st opposite party filed a detailed version contenting the allegations in the complaint, 1st opposite party did not turned up for cross examination of the complainant.
4. Point No.1 and 2:-
Complainant’s case is that the 3rd opposite party approached the complainant for promoting and distributing their product by making assurance of providing all necessary assistance and thereby the complainant had bought some products from 3rd opposite party and their stockiest was 1st opposite party. Further allegation of the complainant is that as promised by the 3rd opposite party they did not helped the complainant for selling the said product. Accordingly the complainant had returned the products to the 3rd opposite party and demanded its cost. The opposite parties were not responded. Hence the complainant approached this Commission for redressal of his grievance. Complainant filed proof affidavit not in time with the complaint. Though the 1st opposite party filed a detailed version he did not turned up for cross examining the complainant. In the version 1st opposite party pleaded maintainability of the complainant. On the basis of said pleading we raised point No.1 ie, Whether the complainant is a consumer of opposite parties. On discussion of this point we reproduce the definition of ‘consumer’ in S.2(1) d of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Such as “ Consumer means any person who – buys 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.”
In explanation of said provision. [Explanation: For the purpose of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and service availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment;]
Accordingly in this case the complainant purchased the products from 3rd opposite party for resale of the same. As pointed out in the explanation this complainant would not come within the definition of consumer. Hence the complainant has no right to file a complaint before Consumer Commission. Since the point No.1 is answered accordingly the complainant is also not entitled to get reliefs as sought for in the complaint from opposite parties.
5. Point No.3:-
In the result, complaint stands dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 16th day of November, 2021.
Sd/-Smt. Sholy.P.R(Member)
Sd/-Sri.S.SanthoshKumar(President)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Usha.T.V(Complainant)
Ext.A1 - Copy of Letter dtd. 20/3/2017
Ext.A2 - Copy of Letter dtd.14/10/2016
Ext.A3 - Copy of Form-9(VAT Rules 2005)
Evidence of the opposite parties:-Nil
// /True Copy ///
To
Complainant/Oppo.party/S.F.
By Order
Assistant Registrar
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
