District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly
PETITIONER
VS.
OPPOSITE PARTY
Complaint Case No.CC/168/2023
(Date of Filing:-04.09.2023)
Sri Raj Kumar Ghosh
Village:-Ugardahaa, P.O. Baruipara, P.S. Singur
-Versus
- Sri Amit Koley, Proprietor,
Suryadeep Multipurpose Cold Storage LLP Proprietor, Modern Vill:- Barobelu, P.O. Belumilki, P.S. Serampore
District:- Hooghly, Pin:-712223
- Surya Kanta Satpathi,
MMS Chamber, Room No. 1-2
4A Council House Street, Kolkata-700001
P.O. Council House Street, P.S. North Port
……Opposite Parties
Before:-
Mr. Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President
Mr. Debasis Bhattacharya, Member
Mrs. Babita Choudhury, Member
PRESENT:
Dtd. 28.10.2024
Final Order/Judgment
Debasis Bhattacharya:- Presiding Member
This instant complaint case arises out of the petitioner’s grievances over the Opposite Parties’ initial reluctance and final refusal to pay back the money against the resale of the fruits purchased by the Complainant against bonds, from the OP Cold Storage authority.
Having been aggrieved over and dissatisfied with the treatment extended by the OPs in the matter of the follow up transactions, the instant complaint petition has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Brief Facts of the case
The fact of the case is that the Complainant claims to have purchased apples through bonds from the OP cold storage owner in the year 2018. The first purchase of Rs.5,00,00/- was made on 18.08.2018 and the second purchase of another Rs.5,00,000/- was made on 21.08.2018. Reportedly the Cold storage owner assured the Complainant that after three months the apples would be sold and the sale proceeds would be handed over to the Complainant.
However, after four months when the Complainant approached to the OP cold storage owner, he was asked to wait for some more time.
Having trust on the OP cold storage owner, the Complainant waited for more than one and a half year. But this time when he further approached to the cold storage authority he came to know that the owner of the cold storage from whom the purchases were made had expired. At this point of time when he claimed his money, misbehavior was extended to him by the son of the erstwhile owner, the then authority of the cold storage.
In the year 2022, the Complainant made a further visit to the cold storage and it came to his knowledge that the cold storage was under the custody of OP 2.
The Complainant somehow managed the address of OP 2 and when he enquired about the issue, he was asked to write a letter giving all the details of his claim. Accordingly the Complainant sent a letter to OP 2 furnishing the details.
In reply through e-mail dtd.03.02.23, OP 2 asked for certain documents and the Complainant claims to have submitted the required documents before OP 2.
It is claimed that in spite of submission of all the documents no initiative was taken by OP 2 in the matter of the Complainant’s claim.
A legal notice was sent in this regard on 06.03.2023.
However, the legal notice, repeated visits to the OPs’ offices were exercises in utter futility.
On 12.06.23 when the Complainant approached to OP1 for further persuasion in the matter of resale proceeds of the said fruit bonds, he was allegedly threatened.
Considering the OP’s treatment with him as ‘deficiency in service and unfair trade practice’ the complaint petition has been filed in which the petitioner prays for imposing direction upon the OPs to make payment of Rs.10,00,000/- in favour of the Complainant against the fruit bonds, to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation, to pay further Rs.6,00,000/- for causing mental trauma and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards litigation cost.
The Complainant has submitted two money receipts, each of five lacs, copies of the legal notice sent by him, postal receipt thereof and the e-mail received from OP 2 as corroborating evidences.
Evidence on affidavit and brief notes of argument are almost replicas of the complaint petition.
It is to be mentioned that in spite of proper service of notices OPs preferred not to make their appearances before this Commission in course of hearing. Thus the instant case ran ex parte against both the OPs.
The Complainant and OP 1 are resident/having their establishment within the district of Hooghly and the claim preferred by the Complainant does not exceed the limit of Rs.50,00,000/-. Thus this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant case.
Decision with reasons
The primary question which is to be resolved first is whether the Complainant can be treated as a consumer.
In the instant case the Complainant purchased the purported fruit bonds for resale purpose only. The purpose apparently was a commercial one and the Complainant consumed nothing. Neither it is declared in the complaint petition, that the trading of fruit bonds was the sole source of earning livelihood of the complainant, nor any hard evidence in support of the same is submitted along with the complaint petition. Thus, the Commission is of the opinion that the Complainant in the instant case cannot be treated as a consumer.
Secondly, the money receipts submitted are devoid of credibility as, in spite of being high value money receipts the same are not accompanied by revenue stamps. Besides, it is not mentioned in the money receipts whether the payments were made in cash, draft or cheques. Moreover the money receipts show two names against the column ‘Received from’, one of Rajkumar Ghosh and the other of Pradip Ghosh. The money receipts nowhere show that the amounts were received against sale of fruit bonds. However, even if the authenticity of the money receipts can be established, the case cannot be entertained as a consumer case as the charge framed by the Complainant against the OPs involve some sort of fraudulent activities or some sort of cheating.
Thirdly the Complaint petition grossly suffers from insufficient documentation as apart from the purported money receipts, legal notice and e-mail received from OP 2, no other document viz. copy of any sort of agreement or copies of the physical fruit bonds are submitted before this Commission.
In these circumstances question of deciding whether there was any deficiency of service on the OPs’ part or whether the Complainant is entitled to any relief does not arise.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the CC case No.168/2023 be and the same is dismissed ex parte.
However the Complainant is given liberty to move to the appropriate forum for remedial measures.
There is no order as to costs.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties or their authorized Advocates/Agents on record, by hand against proper acknowledgement or sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The final order will be available in the respective website i.e. www.confonet.nic.in
