M/s Om Mehta vs. M/s A.F.P. Marketing Company etc.

Dated 01.02.2023.

Present:       Sh. Deepak Monga, Advocate for complainant.

                   Heard on the point of maintainability of present complaint.

2.       The firm of the complainant namely M/s Om Mehta and sons has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties firm’s M/s A.F.P Marketing Company Private Limited and others with the prayer that ops be directed to pay Rs.10 lacs i.e. costs of dumped food material and Rs.36,000/- which is outstanding against the ops as per stat ement of account alongwith interest, to lift the poor quality food material lying in the godown worth Rs. ten lacs and also to pay a sum of Rs.ten lacs as compensation on account of deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice and also for causing harassment etc. to the firm of the complainant.          

3.       According to the complainant, they have purchased food material from the ops worth Rs.25 lacs to Rs.30 lacs since 2020 and ops have also assured the complainant to provide benefits of B.O.B Plan scheme but all in vain and the ops have also not provided any benefits of this scheme till today. As per the statement of account, a sum of Rs.36,000/- remained outstanding against the ops up to March, 2022. It is further alleged that food material supplied by ops to the complainant worth Rs.10 lacs is also dumped due to poor quality and complainant is unable to sell the same in the market. It is further alleged that now about one year ago the ops have decreased the quality of the food material and used to supply inferior quality malafidely. Even the food item supplied by ops suffer serious manufacturing defects as it left severe bad smell and is not able to eat. The complainant supplied the said item to the shops and all the shop keepers have made complaints to the complainant regarding food material i.e. “Sohan Papri” that this material is of very poor quality. It is further alleged that even other food materials supplied by the ops were also not of proper quality, but the same were also of inferior quality. That due to act and conduct of ops, the complainant suffered big loss of his reputation and the food material of ops is lying in the godown and complainant is forced to pay the rent for godown. Hence, this complaint.

4.       We have heard learned counsel for complainant and have gone through the contents of the complaint and also gone through the decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Tosoh India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Ram Kumar and others, RP No. 2833 of 2018 decided on 6.1.2020 and Super Computer Centre vs. Globiz Investment Pvt. Ltd. RP No. 1086 of 2006 decided on 9.5.2006 relied upon by learned counsel for complainant. 

5.       Admittedly the complainant is a firm indulged in the business of sale and purchase of food items and has been purchasing food items from ops’ firm for further selling the same to the shop keepers. From the transactions made by complainant’s firm to the ops’ firm, it is evident that the complainant’s firm is doing the business at large scale as it is admission of complainant that their firm deals in Super Stockiest/ Whole-seller of Food Material in the area of Sirsa and Fatehabad District. It is not the case of the complainant’s firm that it is doing the business at small scale only for earning livelihood and as such from the contents of the complaint, it is evident that complainant firm’s has been purchasing the food items from ops’ firm for commercial purposes. In this regard Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 defines the meaning of a “Consumer” and sub section (i) of the same is relevant and is reproduced as under:-

          2(7) “consumer” means any person who-

i)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.    

6.From the perusal of facts of this case, since complainant is purchasing goods for further re-sale and for commercial purpose, therefore, as per above said definition of Section 2 (7) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, complainant does not fall under the definition of Consumer and present complaint is not maintainable. The authorities cited by learned counsel for complainant are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case since the complainant in their whole complainant has not alleged that they are doing the above said work only for earning livelihood and moreover, it is own admission of complainant that their firm deals in Super Stockiest/ Whole-seller of Food Material in the area of Sirsa and Fatehabad District which itself makes it clear that complainant’s firm is purchasing the goods from ops’ firm for resale and for commercial purposes only. Since complainant is not a consumer as per Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, therefore, present complaint is dismissed being not maintainable before this Commission.A copy of this order be supplied to the complainant as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.

                   Member                Member                President                                                                                                                       DCDRC, Sirsa.