Orissa

Jagatsinghapur

CC/11/2019

Sri Chhapan Bhog - Complainant(s)

Versus

Senior Manager Indian Farmers - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.N.C.Barik

26 Aug 2022

ORDER

                                                                                 C.C. No.11/2019

 

Chhapan Bhog, N.6/317,

Biju Pattnaik College Road,

Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar-15,

Prop. Satyabrata Mohanty,

Vill.- Tentulipada (Kulasahi),

P.O.- Kanakpur,

P.S.- Tirtol,

Dist.- Jagatsinghpur.                                              ……………. Complainant

 

                                           (Versus)

 

Sri Dhiren Kumar Jena,

Senior Manager,

Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Ltd.,

Vill.- Musadia,

P.O./P.S.- Paradip,

Dist.- Jagatsinghpur.……… Opposite party

 

For Complainant………..Mr. N.C. Barik & Associate

For Opposite party……….. Mr. B. Tripathy, Advocate

 

Date of Hearing: 05.8.2022                        Date of Judgment:26.8.2022

 

                                                                                             JUDGMENT

 

            Complainant has filed this consumer complaint U/s.12 of C.P. Act, 1986 seeking following reliefs;

            “Direct the opposite party to pay the compensation of Rs.4,64,689/- and also to award cost of litigation”.

            The brief fact of the case is that the complainant supply sweets in various organization such as Jindal, NTPC, Vodafone, Aircel, Airtel, Care Hospital, IOCL Paradeep, AMRI Hospital, AIIMs Hospital, Kalinga Hospital and other corporate organization and also supplied sweets to various Government department including the cultural department as the products of the consumer is quality products. The opposite party on dt.03.9.2018 issued order to the petitioner for supply 1185 Kg sweet items to petitioner valued at Rs.3,87,600/- and the date of delivery of the item was 16.9.2018 at 3 P.M. As per the order of the opposite party vide order No.6335 dt.03.9.2018 the complainant prepared the sweet items which would have delivered to the company on 16.9.2018 but as ill luck would have it on that day the opposite party cancelled the order over phone, when the complainant ask the reason, the opposite party answered the quality is not good and some false and baseless plea of low quality for which complainant suffered mental agony and financial loss in his business. For preparation of the sweet items, so also for packing and other misc expenses the complainant in total invested a sum of Rs.3,14,689/-. The opposite party on 17.9.2018 sent information of item No.1 Ladoo so also refused to purchase the other items, so the complainant issued a pleader notice to the opposite party on dt.20.9.2018 and after receiving the notice gave reply through his Advocate on dt.03.10.2018. Due to such unfair trade practice the complainant sustained a loss of Rs.3,14,689/- and Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and loss of reputation in his business and litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/-.

            Opposite party has appeared and filed written version stating as under;

            The complainant supplies the sweets in various organizations, as the products of the consumer are quality products are not within the knowledge of this opposite party. It is not correct to say that the opposite party had issued order to the complainant of 1185 Kgs. of sweet items valued at Rs.3,87,000/-. But the rest facts regarding delivery date of the item is correct one and admitted. On 15.9.2018 the opposite party immediately sent e-mail to the complainant on the same day at 9.34 PM stating therein for cancellation of item No.1 i.e. Ladoo as the same was not as per the sample quality submitted at the time of officer, but so far the item No.2 & 3 i.e. Bundee and Sev are concerned it was intimated to the complainant to supply these items on the date and item fixed as per the purchase order. Since at the last moment the complainant’s firm did not supply the item No.2 & 3 the opposite party was placed in horrible situation to arrange such items for Bhoga of Lord Viswakarma to be distributed among it’s employees and for that the opposite party took a lot of strain to arrange Bhoga by mounting extra cost of the items. The opposite party has rightly rejected the item No.1 on inspection without any malafide intention, although they made OK for the item No.2 & 3. But in spite of all these the complainant did not supply the item No.2 & 3 which is a gross negligence on the part of the complainant and deficiency in service.

            In this case opposite party has placed order to purchase sweets from complainant. But the seller has filed this consumer complaint seeking relief for deficiency of service and due to cancellation of order complainant sustain loss to the tune of Rs.3,47,600/-. The ward “Consumer” has been explained U/s.2 (7) (i) which read as under;

            “(7) “consumer” means any person who- (i) buys any goods 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 user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose.”        

            In the present case the opposite party is a buyer and the complainant is a seller but the complainant has shought relief from the customer/buyer/purchaser. This Commission has no power to entertain any dispute or to award any compensation to the seller/purchaser. As such this Commission lacks jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and accordingly the consumer complaint is dismissed. However liberty to given to the complainant to raise his grievance before appropriate Court of law if so advised. No cost.

 

            Pronounced in the open Commission on this 26^th August, 2022.

 

 

MEMBER                                                                                              PRESIDENT