DATE OF FILING                    :     22/01/2014.

DATE OF S/R                            :      20/02/2014.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     18/08/2014.

M/S Govardhan Das P.A (Calcutta)

Senior Partner Jogindar Raj Aggarwal,

S/O Lt. Govardhan Das,

32, Netaji Subhas Road,

P.O. Khagrapatty, P.S. Barabazar,

Kolkata, 700 001

Factory at P- 96, Benaras Road,

P.O. Netajigarh, Police Station, Liluah,

Dist Howrah 711 108----------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.      M/S Rawat International Pvt. Ltd,

Director Pradip Rawat,

1, Hight Road, Liluah Howrah

Office at 5K, 184, Park Street

Kolkata 700 071-----------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  The instant case was  filed by complainant   U/S 12 of the  C.P.  Act, 1986,

as amended against the O.P.  alleging deficiency in service U/S 2( 1 )( g ),  2( 1 )( o ) of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has prayed for passing necessary directives upon the O.P.  to supply ordered materials or alternatively refunded Rs. 50,000/- as paid for purchase of the material and to pay compensation of Rs.  2 lakhs together with other relief/s as the repeated requests of the complainant to refund the amount went unheeded.

2.                  In spite of  receiving the notice the o.p. did not enter appearance nor

did file any written version.  So the case was heard ex parte against the o.p.

3.                  Three  points require to be determined :

i)                    Whether the present complainant is a consumer under the  C.P. Act, 1986 ?

ii)                  Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

4.                  All the points are  taken up together for active consideration. From the

complaint it is noticed that the complainant is running a reputed partnership firm and have been running its business of manufacturing and selling of different types of valves marine and industrial components and copper alloy casting through his registered office at Kolkata from which he got profit in exchange of selling of goods to other companies.

5.                  As per Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986 consumer means business to

consumer does not mean business to business transaction as a consumer for which the complaint lodged by the complainant is hit U/S 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986 as the transaction is purely a commercial in nature. As the complainant is not treated as a consumer the question of deficiency in service against the o.p. does not arise and no relief is being entertained.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 28 of 2014 ( HDF 28 of 2014 )  be  dismissed accordingly.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.      

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (   P. K. Chatterjee )                                                         

  Member,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.