DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Palakkad, Kerala
Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2011
Present: Smt. Seena. H, President
: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi A.K, Member Date of filing: 20/06/2011
CC/91/2011
P. Sukumaran,
T.P.IX/389, “Sukrutham”,
P.O. Mezhathur, Trithala (Via),
Palakkad District, 679 534
(By Adv. Jayaram)
Vs
1. The Managing Director,
M/s Pidilite Industries Limited,
Ellikkal Estate, 24/13, NH 47,
Pathadipalam, Edapally (P.O),
Ernakulam District,
Kochi- 682 024
2. Shri A. G. Venkatachalam, Section Head (Depot),
M/s Pidilite Industries Limited.
(By Adv. V. Krishna Menon)
3. Shri G. Prabhakar, Area Sales Manager,
CPASF Division,
M/s Pidilite Industries Limited.
4. Shri V.P. Gopalakrishnan, Territory sales In Charge,
CPASF Division,
M/s Pidilite Industries Limited.
5. Shri P. Jayesh, Territory Sales in Charge,
CPASF Division,
M/s Pidilite Industries Limited.
6. Shri A. T. Santhosh Kumar, Area Sales Manager,
CPMNT Division,
M/s Pidilite Industries Limited.
7. Shri V.R. Rajesh, Territory Sales in Charge,
CPMNT Division,
M/s Pidilite Industries Limited.
(Complete address of Sr. No 2 to 7 as at Sr. No. 1)
O R D E R
By Smt. Seena. H, President
The case of complaint is that the opposite parties had appointed the complainant as the dealer/distributor for the products supplied by them. The complainant has been sincerely carrying out the consumer sales promotion during the dealership period and there was a sale turn over of Rs. 27,00,000/-.
Later the complainant find it difficult to carry out the business due to supply of slow moving and non moving and substand items by the opposite parties and also due to the refusal of the opposite parties to make good the loss for the unsold stocks etc.
Even after lapse of more than 1 year time since the termination of the dealership/distributorship agreement opposite parties has not settled the accounts to the satisfaction of the complainant. Hence the complaint is filed claiming Rs. 2,06,302/- being the loss suffered by the complainant on account of supply of slow moving and non moving products and exemplary damages to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-.
Opposite parties has filed an application to consider the question of maintainability as a preliminary issue.
According to opposite parties complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act and the complaint do not constitute as consumer dispute. Further prayer for settlement of account due to the alleged period of dealership is also not maintainable before the Forum.
Heard both parties regarding the preliminary issue and has gone through the facts of the case.
As per the complaint, complainant is the dealer/distributor appointed by the opposite parties for the sale of their products. Complainant has stated in the complaint that the cause of action for the complaint is the defects, deficiency, absolute lack of business ethics practised by the opposite parties against the honest and efficient retail and whole sale market services rendered by the complainant.
As per the complaint itself complainant has rendered service to the opposite parties. Section 2 (1) (d) clause (ii) of the Act read as follows:
"Consumer" means any person who--
(ii) hires or avails of any services 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 beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payments, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first-mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes.
Going through the facts of the case we understood that, it is the opposite parties who had hired the service of the complainant.
There is no dispute that the complainant was rendering services but what the law demands is hiring of services. Hence we are of the view that the complainant will not come under the definition of consumer as defined as a Consumer Protection Act.
In view of the above discussion we decide the preliminary issue in favour of the opposite parties. In the result complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 22nd day of October, 2011
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Preetha. G. Nair
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Bhanumathi. A. K
Member
