Orissa

Rayagada

CC/33/2022

K.Suraj Kumar Patra - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Phirman Tecyhnologies Pvt Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Brundaban Gouda

22 Feb 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION RAYAGADA, ODISHA. E-mail- dcdrfrgda@gmail.com

Date of Institution: 02.06.2022

      Date of Final Hearing: 25.01.2024

         Date of  Pronouncement: 22.02.2024

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 33 / 2022

Sri K.Suraj  Kumar Patra,

Proprietor,

M/S. Maa  Bhairabi  Cell Point,

Muniguda, Near  ICICI Bank,

Po: Muniguda, Dist: Rayagada. 765 020.

(Through Self for the Complainant)                           …Complainant

 

Versus

1.The Manager,

M/S. Phixman Technologies Pvt. Ltd.,

Having its Registration office

At: D-485, 3^rd. floor,

Ramaphal Chowk,

Dwarka  Sector-7, Delhi-110075.

(Sri Sitaram  Panda, Advocate for  O.Ps).

                                                                            …Opposite Parties

 

ORDER

Sri  Rajendra  Kumar  Panda, President.

Brief facts of the case:-

Case in hand is the allegation of  deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the O.Ps  for  non refund   of    deposited   amount  out of Franchise agreement  executed by the  complainant which  the complainant sought  redressal.

On being  noticed the  O.Ps.  filed  written version  through  their learned counsel .

            The complainant was  present during  the course of hearing.

            The  O.Ps. in their written version  preliminary  contended that the case  is not maintainable  before this commission. Heard.

In the present case in hand as per the complainant’s own averments  and  allegations, it is manifest that  the complainant has availed the services of   the O.Ps  can not be regarded as “Consumer” falling within the scope of the  C.P. Act and,   therefore, the complainant  do not fall  within the definition of consumer, therefore  not entitled  to invoke the  jurisdiction  of this  commission  for the redressal of their  grievance. 

On perusal of the  complaint petition this  Commission  observed  that the matters relating to the franchise agreement executed by the  complainant  will not comes under the purview of the C.P. Act, 2019.  This commission  has lack of jurisdiction to entertain the dispute relating to  the franchise agreement executed by the complainant  and adjudicate  the same under the provisions  of the C.P. Act, 2019.  The case is not maintainable in view of the above discussion.

The grievance of the complainant for payment of  franchise agreement executed by the  complainant   can be raised  before the appropriate court of law and not before this commission. We  do not  think  proper to go  into merit of this case.

Hence, the claim of the   complainant can not be accepted under the provisions of the C.P. Act. It is open to  complainant   ordinary remedy to approach the court of competent  having  its jurisdiction.

The period  consumed before the Consumer Commission  could be excluded, while calculating  the period of limitation, as  contemplated Under  Section -14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Miscellaneous  order if any  delivered by this  commission  relating to this case  stands vacated. 

 A copy of this order be provided to all the parties at  free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act,  2019 or they may download same from the confonet.nic.in to treat the same as if copy of order received from this Commission.

The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

File be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

  

                                                                        PRESIDENT

 

PRONOUNCED ON. 22.02.2024