Orissa

Rayagada

CC/61/2017

Sri Jayaram Mohapatra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Sandeep Panda - Opp.Party(s)

Self

28 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 61/ 2017.                                          Date.    28   .    05   . 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                          President

Sri GadadharaSahu,                                              Member.

Smt. Padmalaya Mishra,.                                    Member

 

Sri  Jayaram Mohapatra, S/O: Sri Ramanath Mohapatra,  Prop:Chabiram Enterprises, Karan Street,  Po/Dist:Rayagada (Odisha) pin No. 765 001.                                        …….Complainant

Vrs.

1. Sri Sandeep Panda, Branch Manager, M/S. Intec India Ltd., Bhubaneswar.
2. Sri Amarjit Singh,  Managing Director,      M/S. Intec India Ltd., New Delhi.                                                                                  .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                                           

For the complainant: - Sri S. Jagadish Kumar, Advocate.

For the O.Ps  :- Set exparte.

                                                       J u d g e m e n t

                The  present disputes arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for non refund of  deposited amount a sum of Rs.2,99,000/-.

                On being noticed the O.Ps neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version though availing  of more than  07 adjournments. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayed to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around one year  for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing from  the   complainant set the case  exparte against the O.Ps. The action of the O.Ps is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.P  set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.    

        Heard from the complainant at length.

        We therefore proceed to dispose of the case, on its merit. We perused the complaint petition and the document filed by the complainant.

                                                FINDINGS.

            The principal question that arises for our determination before going to the merits of the case  whether the complainant is a consumer within the definition of Section 2(i)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act?  It is  held and reported in C.P.R.- 2002 (3) page No. 197 where in the hon’ble National Commission observed “Supply of goods purely for resale will not be in nature of deficiency in service and sale being for commercial  purpose- Complainant would not be a consumer”. Further another citation reported in 2011 Supreme Appeal  Reporter (Civil) page No. 126 where in the Hon’ble Supreme Court  observed “Goods have been purchased for commercial purpose, the complaint itself was not maintainable”.

            Again it is held and reported in C.P.R-2011 (4) page No. 457 the Hon’ble National Commission observed  wherein observed “Commercial users can not invoke jurisdiction  of District Consumer Forum for redressal  of their grievances”

            On perusal of the complaint petition  and on relying the citations of the  Hon’ble Apex Court it reflects that the complainant is not a consumer  coming under the purview of the C.P. Act. On perusal  of the petition  it is  revealed  that the complainant is a  dealer and selling the goods  purchased from the  O.P.  and that  goods purely for  resale  and the  sale being purely for commercial purpose. The grievance which was made by the complainant with regard to  refund  of deposited  amount, and damages does not comes under the purview of the C.P. Act, 1986 since the transaction has dealt with commercial  business purpose   for profit.

Prior  to delve in to the merit  of the case on outset  we have to  consider whether the complaint petition  is maintainable   under C.P. Act ?  While answering  the issue  we would like to refer the citation. It is held and reported in   1995 (2) CPJ page  No.1 in the case of Laxmi Engineering  Works  Vrs.  PSG Industries Institute    where in the  Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that  “if any  has obtained goods for commercial purpose  with a view to using   the  said goods for carrying on any  activity of profit, other than   exclusively for  self employment, such person is excluded from the purview of the  C.P. Act.” On this   ground  alone, the instant complaint is not maintainable and ought to be summarily  rejected.

                In the present case in hand as per the complainant’s own averments  and  allegations, it is manifest that  the complainant has availed the services of   the O.Ps  purely  for commercial purpose  and,   therefore, they do not fall  within the definition of consumer, therefore  not entitled  to invoke the  jurisdiction  of this  forum  for the redressal of their  grievance.  It appears to us that present complaint  is nothing but an attempt  to mis use the process of this forum  with the sole object of saving  court fee payable in a civil suit.   

 

            This forum has lack of jurisdiction to entertain the  above dispute  and adjudicate  the same under the provisions  of the C.P. Act, 1986.  The case is not maintainable in view of the above discussion.

The grievance of the complainant can be raised  before the appropriate court of law and not before this forum. We  do not  think  proper to go  into merit of this case.

Hence, the claim of the   complainant can not be accepted under the provisions of the C.P. Act. It is open to  complainant   ordinary remedy to approach proper forum.       

So  to meet the  ends of justice    the following order is passed.

                                                                                             

 

                                                            ORDER.

            In  resultant this forum dismiss the present complaint petition as not maintainable, however  with liberty to the complainant to pursue their remedy before competent  court having jurisdiction in the matter.   Parties are left to bear their own cost.  Accordingly the case  is closed.

            The time spent before consumer forum shall be set-off  by  the  authority, where the proceedings are taken up, as per provision of Section-14 of Limitation Act, as per the law laid   down by  the Hon’ble  Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering works Vrs. P.S.G.Industrial Institute 1995 (3) SCC  583.

Dictated and corrected by me.                    Pronounced on this      28 ^th.    Day of   May,  2018.

 

Member.                                                             Member.                                                              President