The complainant Sri Pranab Kr Khound and  his counsel ld advocate  Mr T.Deva Goswami are present today.

We have  heard submission of  ld advocate  Mr Goswami  on the point of  admissibility of  the complaint.  We have  perused the complaint itself   as well as  the submission   of ld advocate  Mr Goswami  and found   that the  complainant  was appointed  by the  opp. party - North Eastern Economic Development Society (NEEDS) as agent  for a  block service  centre  for Panbazar  area under  Kamrup District Metro on the  basis  of an agreement  bearing no- 16AA 189242  entered  by them   on 07/11/2014  and accordingly    he was  providing  service to the    opp. party NGO and he also paid the opp. party Rs.1,50,000/-  through  two cheques towards  promotion of two hundred  customer  service  cards through  his centre, and the  opp. party  agreed  to provide  full  staff support  to run his  service  centre, but the opp. party  neither  provided  staff support  for  promotion   of the  customer  service centre , but the complainant  continued  the business  of the   opp. party  and the  opp. party   paid  him Rs.25,000/-  in exchange  of twenty  five  customer  care cards sold to  different  customers  with  assurance  that  remaining  amounts   of  Rs.1,75,000/-  will be   paid to  him in   installments in span of  time, but the   opp. party  did not    pay  the balance   amount  as assured  , and later on,   he found  the office   of the opp. party  was closed   on being  left  by the  officials.  It is   found  from   the  complaint that, the complainant prays for  directing  the  opp. party to  refund  the principal amount  of Rs. 1,75,000/- with commission  in exchange of 175  customer care  cards  and  Rs.20,000/-  as compensation   and Rs.5,000/-  as  litigation   cost.  Thus,   it is crystal clear   that the   complainant  was    running   a business  as a commission   agent  under  the  opp. party  and the  dispute  has arisen  while  the  opp. party  denied  to pay back  the  principal amount   of Rs.1,75,000/-  paid   by the   complainant  as well   as     the  commission   thereof. Therefore, the  dispute  is a dispute  between   the opp. party NGO (NEEDS)  and the   complainant  who is  a  commission  agent  of that  NGO. So,  it is not a   case   of dispute  between  the service  provider  and the  customer of service  , but  a dispute  between   the  principal and  an agent; and  hence  the dispute  cannot  be adjudicated by  this  forum.  Therefore,  we hold that this  forum has no jurisdiction  to adjudicate  upon the   dispute  in hand,  meaning  thereby    the complainant has  no prima facie  case  against  the opp. party  to be admitted  and disposed  of under  the provision Consumer Protection Act,  1986. Therefore,  the  complaint  is dismissed  in limine.