SRI JIBAN KRUSHNA BEHERA, MEMBER (I/c)
The complainant has filed this complaint petition, U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in-after called as the “Act”) alleging a deficiency in service against the Ops.
2. The case of the complainant, in short, is that he is a school teacher. One day, he along with his office staff had been to OP No.1, who showed him a business plan about Armada Bazaar or Armada Mart whose value was Rupees two lakhs. According to the business plan, she would pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant for 30 months, out of which Rs.2,000/- TDS and Rs.2,000/- for product. Then, she used to send Rs.16,000/- per month to the account of the complainant. In total she sent Rs.48,000/- to his account in three consecutive months. As the complainant was in need of money, he paid her Rs.2,00,000/- on 2.11.2022 as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. In the agreement, both the parties were not signed before the Notary, so the agreement is a fake one. As per the agreement, the first party will use the investment and give a portion of profit earned by him from that particular mart per month till 30 months to the second party. It will start after 60 days of the investment made by the second party to the first party. The first party will be liable to pay rent, staff salary, electricity charges, phone & internet bills and marketing expenses. The second party will not liable for any kind of expiry product or labour disputes, wage related issues arising due to hiring of personnel at the mart. The first party will return the security deposit to the second party. It is further stated that one Parshuram Rajnetbhat Pal was shown as the director, but one Pankaj Kumar Parida was signed in the agreement. Further, as per the terms and condition of the agreement, the first party has not paid the profit amount to the complainant from 23.2.2023. It is also stated that the complainant has not received any kind of post-dated cheque of Rs.2,00,000/- from the first party. The complainant approached the Ops time and again for refund of the security amount and profit, but they paid a deaf ear to it for which he sustained financial loss and suffered mental agony.
The cause of action arose for filing of the case on 27.4.2023, when the Ops threatened the complainant and on 1.5.2023, when the Ops received Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant. Hence, this case.
To substantiate his case, the complainant relied upon the following documents, which are placed in the record -
- Photocopy of refund application form.
- Photocopy of postal tracking consignment.
- Photocopy of mobile WhatsApp chart.
- Photocopy of account statement.
- Photocopy of MCA services.
- Photocopy of franchise agreement.
- Photocopy of e-transaction.
- Photocopy of company master data.
- Photocopy of cheque No.000756.
- Photocopy of data of directors of Armada Bazzar Private Limited.
3. In the case at hand, the notices were issued against the Ops by Registered Post so also through the e-mail address, but none of the Ops have appeared nor filed their written version.
4. Heard the matter from the side of the complainant. Perused the complaint petition. No doubt, the complainant is a school teacher. It is stated by the complainant that he had met with Smitarani Panda along with his office staff Jasmine Rout at U.P. School, Danadapalasa and he had no direct contact with her. His office staffs called Smitarani Panda and introduced him to her. At that time, said Smitarani Panda showed him a business plan regarding Armada Bazaar or Armada Mart and subsequently the complainant purchased the plan. Here, in the present case, not a single word has been uttered by the complainant that he has purchased the aforesaid plan with a view to maintain his livelihood. Furthermore, he has purchased a business plan. Armada Bazaar Private Limited is a business establishment deals with Men’s clothing, Women’s clothing, Grocery, Households, Kids Care & Fashion, Electronics, etc. The complainant knowing well its features has opted to purchase the business plan. That apart, Section 17 of the Orissa Government Servant’s Conduct Rules, 1959 provides that no Government Servant shall except with the previous sanction of the Government, engage directly or indirectly in any trade or business or undertake any employment. Here, in the case, the complainant has not produced any document to show that he has obtained valid sanction from the appropriate authority for his engagement in a private business establishment.
5. From the above discussions, it cannot be held that the complainant is a Consumer. Consequently, the complainant has no cause of action to file the present case and the case is not maintainable.
6. With the observations made above, the case is disposed of accordingly, but without any costs.
Pronounced in the open court of this Commission, this the 9th day of July, 2024 under my signature & seal of the Commission.
