Orissa

Rayagada

CC/472/2015

Sri K.Rambabu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Susanta Kumar Bisoi - Opp.Party(s)

Self

22 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA

C.C. Case  No.472/ 2015.               Date.       29  .     9  . 2018

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                          President.

Sri  Gadadhara Sahu,                                            Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

Sri K. Rambabu, S/O: Sri Kondal  Rao, C/O: K.P.R.Naidu,   Po/   Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha).                                                                                                                                                                                                                           …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.Sri Susant Kumar Bisoi,  S/O:  Bijaya Kumar Bisoi,  At/Po:  Pudamari, Dist: Ganjam.

2.Sri Hari Hara Padhy, S/O: Narasingha Padhy,  At/Po: Pudamari, Dist:Ganjam.     

3. Sri Prasanth Kumar Bisoi,  S/O: Bijaya Kumar Bisoi, At/Po: Pudamari, Dist:Ganjam.                                                                                                                    .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: -Sri K.Chakrapani, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.Ps   :- Set exparte.

JUDGEMENT

          The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for   non  refund of  invested  amount a sum of Rs.11,50,000/- for which  the complainant  sought compensation  inter alia  for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

                On being noticed the O.Ps neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version though availing  of more than  25  adjournments. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayed to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around three years  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.Ps were  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.

On perusal  of the petition  it is  revealed  that the complainant  was  collecting   Raw  cottons  from the O.Ps .  The O.Ps were  to pay  for the services   rendered by the complainant for making the services of the product of the O.P.   and the complainant marketing the property of the O.P . The complainant very successfully marketed  and given services of the product and the business of the O.P.   by investing  money  in opening of commercial establishment etc.  While the above matter stood thus the O.Ps.  in clear violation  in spite of receipt of  amount  from the complainant  had not supplied the  Raw Cotton to the complainant  and  without considering the establishment cost and expenses made by the complainant and the accounts are not finalized and the dues pending    remained unpaid by the O.Ps.  Hence this C.C. case.

 

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”

            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, and  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. 

                Again  the complainant   had himself admitted in the complaint that the  above business was on under   the  contract with  the O.Ps. on account of  which  he suffered loss of business and the amount claimed for business   loss  is  Rs.11.50  lakhs in this behalf. In this regard the complainant had not submitted any copy  endorsement  of payment of money  in favour of the O.Ps nor  also proved.  The averments   in the complaint  itself establish  that the  establishment  was started  for commercial purpose  and the complainant had suffered business loss. In view of this, complainant can not be considered  as a consumer within the definition of Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986. Further  there were no averments in the complaint  that the  above establishment   was being used for   livelihood and as such  the complainant  is not a consumer. 

                This forum  relied  another citation  for the purpose of  this case.  It is held  and  reported  in C.P.R-2014(4)  542  wherein the  Hon’ble   National  Commission  observed  “ The complaint involved in the business   and seeking  relief out of business transactions  can not  be  covered    within the definition of  “Consumer”.

            In the present case in hand  the complainant involved in the business   and seeking  relief out of business transactions.  Obviously, business transaction between the parties  was for the  purpose of earning profits and services of O.P. was hired for commercial purpose. In view of this, complainant is not covered  under the  provisions of Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P.Act, 1986  and  can not  be  covered    within the definition of  “Consumer”.

            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 was  collecting  cotton from the O.Ps.   and selling the cotton   purchased from the  O.Ps    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.

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         29^th.    Day of   September,  2018.

 

Member.                                                             Member.                                                             President