Delhi

North East

CC/68/2023

Sh. Rahul Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

RBN Spices - Opp.Party(s)

06 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.68/23

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Rahul Kumar, S/o Sh. Raja Ram, R/o H.No. C- 145, Gali No. 1, Block C, Bhagirathi Vihar, Sabhapur North East, Delhi-110094	Complainant
	Versus
	RBN Spices (Dimensional print lightning Pvt. Ltd.) Through its, Proprietor, 175-A, Ground Floor, Rajpur Khurd Extension, Chhatarpur, Delhi-110068	Opposite Party

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

                                                                  ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

1. The Complainant has filed the present complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act. The case of the Complainant is that he is wholesaler and retailer of spices etc. In the month of October 2021 the Opposite Party approached him as the Opposite Party was in search of the stockiest of the spices for area distribution. On 20.10.2021, the Opposite Party and the Complainant executed a trade agreement. Then the Complainant has purchased the goods i.e. Spices etc. as per the terms and condition of the said agreement. In the end of the month of October 2021, the goods worth Rs. 2,02,639/- were supplied to the Complainant and another order was placed for Rs. 2,30,000/-. The Opposite Party delivered the goods in the month of November. The goods which were delivered to the Complainant in the month December it was found that the goods were in damaged condition and intimation the Opposite Party was given in this regard. The Opposite Party did not exchange the goods after the request of the Complainant. It is the case of the Complainant that as per the replacement policy of the agreement executed between the parties, the Opposite Party was required to inspect the goods but the same was not done.
2. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and have perused the file. The perusal of the complaint shows that the Complainant is engaged in the business of trading. He has purchased the spices etc. from the Opposite Party for selling the same. As per the case of the Complainant he is a trader and stockiest of the Opposite Party. In our considered opinion, the case of the Complainant itself reveals that he has purchased the goods for resale and for commercial purpose. The case of the Complainant is not covered within the definition of “consumer”. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed.
3. Order announced on 06.04.23.

Copy of this order be given to the Complainant free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room

(Adarsh Nain)         Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma)              President