DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.303/2018
Ms. Bandana Kansal
P158/1b MES Heights
Kabul Lines, Delhi Cantt- 110011
….Complainant
Versus
M/s Kkrowten India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
Kaziranga Tower, Zoo Road near
Guwahati Commerce College, Guwahati
M/s Kkrowten India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
Abhinav Center, Old No:19, New No:4,
2nd and 3rd Floor, Cooperative Colony , Off
Off Chamiers Road, Chennai-600018
M/s Kkrowten India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
K-24, 2nd Floor, Lajpat Nagar,
New Delhi - 110024 ….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 05.10.2018
Date of Order : 03.02.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: Sh. U.K. Tyagi
The Complainant has put up claim for refund of Rs.3,57,015/- alongwith interest @18% p.a. w.e.f. 30th March, 2018 till date of actual payment and Rs.20,000/- towards mental pain and agony against M/s KKrowten India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as OP) Kaziranga Tower, RGB Road, near Guwahati Commerce College, Zoo Road, Guwahati.
The facts leading to the case are that the Complainant had placed two orders for Rs.49,020/- and Rs.6,39,727/- online on 30th March, 2018 with OP The items were water purifiers and health products for use/consumption of her family and her aged parents. As per invoice, the consignments were to be delivered to her Delhi address. After waiting for 5 months, she made numbers of calls and e-mails etc. but there was no reply. Online tracking of OP showed “your shipment is not started”. She further adds that numbers of correspondence were made for refund but the OP had paid her Rs.3,15,144.83/- on 05.04.2018 after deducting the TDS of Rs.16,587/- from the total bonus of Rs.3,31,731.83/-. Hence the refund of Rs.3,57,015/- (688747-331732) is sought.
OP, on the other hand, took preliminary objection that OP is neither necessary party nor proper party to the proceedings. The alleged transaction is between Ms. Bandana Kansal and Mr. Kamaluddin and Mr. Sanatan Das. Hence the complaint is bad in law. OP further added that the complainant is a distributor of the OP and does not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’ provided for in Section 2(1) of Consumer Protection Act. OP alleged that there appear to be certain differences between Complainant and Mr. Sanatan Das on behalf of the Complainant who had taken the delivery of products. It was also stated that on receipt of Notice from this forum, the OP investigated the matter and asked Mr. Sanatan Das and his sales team leader to have this matter resolved. Mr. Sanatan Das and Mr.Kamaluddin made the payment of Rs.3,57,015/- to the Complainant as per details as Exh. ‘C’. OP has also challenged these proceedings on the ground of jurisdiction as OP’s Head Office is in Chennai and transaction took place in Guwahati. It is further added that the complainant is having distributorship with ID K89170249. This ID is mentioned in the invoice and is also recorded in the company’s records. The Complainant herself admitted that she had earned bonus on such purchase. On the perusal of invoice, it is stated that the mode of transport was shown as ‘Pick up’ which means that the order was to be picked from Guwahati as indent was placed on Guwahati office. Invoice also indicates that Mr. Sanatan Das had taken the delivery of the goods. It was also stated by OP that the purchase order form which is exhibited as Exh. ‘D’ is in her name and her unique distributor ID was used in Purchase order which contains the signature of Mr. Sanatan Das which proves that Mr. Sanatan Das had some kind of arrangement with the complainant. As mentioned in the P.O., the mode of transport is shown as ‘pick up’, hence, delivery at Delhi address was not to be given. The OP also got the Application Form duly filled in and signed by the Complainant along with her husband for enrolling herself as direct seller of OP.
Both the parties have filed written submission and evidence by way of affidavits. Rejoinder by the complainant and written statement by the OP are available on record. Arguments are heard and concluded.
This Commission has gone into the material placed before us. The central issue is whether the two indents placed by the Complainant amount to ‘goods for resale or goods for consumption’. After going through the contents of the rejoinder/complaint and written statement along with annexures, prima facie, it is revealed that the Complainant has denied in toto the facts relating to distributorship with the OP. There is no substantial evidence given by the complainant to counter duly filled in the Application Form for the direct sale which seems to have been signed by the Complainant and her husband as primary applicant and Co-applicant. The signatures of her husband seem similar to the signatures in authority letter advanced by the Complainant for contesting the case in this Commission. It is also noted that the said application form vividly mentions:- “I/we do hereby declare that the information furnished above is true and I/we are legally competent to enter this contract. This application constitutes a offer to become direct seller of KKrowten India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. on the terms and condition specified overleaf which I/we have read and agree to abide by the same”. Further it is also seen that the Complainant has submitted her copy PAN, Bank Cheque, Aadhar Card etc. which generally are not required for the general sale i.e. goods for consumption of the self and her family. It is not understood/explained that if the goods are for their consumption, why unique ID i.e. K 89170249 was used in the purchase order. Moreover, it is also seen that the KBB application Form also bears the name of Mr. Sanatan Das. It is also noted that the OP had paid Rs.3,15,144.83/- on 05.04.2018 after deducting TDS of Rs.16,587/- . As we understand, this kind of sale does not attract TDS.
Moreover, when the invoice was examined carefully, it is noticed that the mode of transport is shown as ‘Pick up’ as contended by the Complainant also. But if the goods are to be transported from Guwahati (Assam) to Delhi, then there should have been mention of IGST. Place of order also raises doubt- as it is shown as NA Delhi. Under the mode of transport, there should have been more details of bailee if goods were to be transported to Delhi.
All the facts so narrated above take away the complainant, from the scope of definition of consumer as defined in Consumer Protection Act. It would be appropriate if we ponder over the clause (1) of Section 2(7) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, even if a person buys any good for consideration and obtains such goods for “resale” or any commercial purpose then he is not a consumer within meaning of the Act. Resale applies where the goods are purchased not for consumption but for further sale by person/dealer or supplier in the ordinary course of business. Thus, the OP has discharged the burden of proof by adducing and has completely proved that the instant case is not covered by the definition of the ‘Consumer’ as provided in the Consumer Protection Act.
In nutshell, it is evaluated that case is not found covered under the Consumer Protection Act and the Complaint is found ‘devoid of merit’ and is therefore, rejected. No order as to cost to the parties.
File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties. Order be uploaded on the website.
