Orissa

Cuttak

CC/152/2019

Ranjubala Mohanty - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Director,Chrometan Exports Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

N N Behera

04 Apr 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.152/2019

           Urban Agency, represented through it’s

           Proprietor Ranjubala Mohanty,

           W/O:Anjan Kumar Das,

           At:Maitri Nagar,P.O:Nayabazar,

           P.S:Chauliaganj,Dist:Cuttack.                                       ... Complainant.

          Vrs.

 

1.       The Director,Chrometan Exports Pvt. Ltd.,

204,AJC Bose Road,Kolkata-700017.

 

2.      The Branch Manager,UCO Bank,

Chauliganj Branch,At:Chauliaganj,

P.O:Nayabazar, Dist/Town:Cuttack.                                       ...Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

 

Date of filing:    13.11.2019

Date of Order:  04.04.2023

 

For the complainant:                    Mr. N.N.Behera,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps   :              None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that the complainant is a proprietorship firm having its principal place of business at Cuttack.  The complainant had entered into an agreement with O.P no.1 on 1.4.2018 which was renewed annually for distribution and sales of its products within Odisha state as consignee agent.  The bank guarantee of Rs.5,00,000/- was also renewed annually effective from 1.,4.19 to 31.3.20 with bank guarantee no.15841GFIN000118 dt.9.5.2019 in favour of O.Ps no.1 & 2 but the O.P no.2 violated the terms and conditions of the agreement and had not issued any order to the stock of the complainant and had not supplied any products as agreed upon.  O.P no.1 stopped the staff payment as a result had to quit their job.  Though assured for supply of goods by O.P no,1, actually no action was initiated for which the complainant had to suffer a lot.  After repeated correspondences, O.P no.1 claimed that he has to get more than Rs.4,00,000/- from the complainant.  The complainant by providing the details of transaction could know and had informed the O.P no.1 that he is entitled to get a sum of Rs.1,61,733/- alongwith damaged stock but O.P no.1has demanded a sum of Rs.4,43,286/- from the complainant within three days and had threatened that he would be bound to encash the bank guarantee.  Thus, the complainant had come up with this case seeking direction to the O.P in order to carryon business and make the final settlement as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, further with a direction to the O.P to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony of the complainant, a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the litigation expenses.  The complainant has further sought for direction to the O.Ps not to encash the bank guarantee and also for any other reliefs as deemed fit and proper.

          The complainant has filed copies of several documents alongwith his complaint petition for establishing the case as filed.

2.       On the other hand, both the O.Ps having not preferred to contest this case, the O.P no.1 was set exparte vide order dt.29.9.2020 whereas O.P no.2 was set exparte vide order dt.20.4.22.

3.       The points for determination in this case are as follows:

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed?

Point No.i.

Out of the three points, point no.i being the most pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

          After going through the averments as made in the complaint petition and also perusing the copies of documents as annexed to the complaint petition, it is noticed that the complainant here in this case does not come within the purview of the definition of “consumer” as described in the C.P.Act.  As it appears that the complainant had a commercial nexus with the O.P no.1 and has urged by filing the case before this Commission seeking direction towards the said O.P no.1 for settling the dues and to continue business.  This indicates, the clear nature and purpose of the case which is commercial dealing and does not come within the definition of “consumer.”That apart, the prayer of the complainant seeking direction to settle his dispute as regards to payment, which, according to the complainant O.P no.1 is entitled to get only Rs.1,61,733/- whereas O.P no.1 has demanded a sum of Rs.4,43,286/- from the complainant.  This dispute of money cannot also be settled by this Commission.  Accordingly, this Commission feels that there is no jurisdiction of this Commission to entertain the petition of the complainant which is sheerly commercial in nature and the prayers as made by the complainant regarding the ambiguity of settlement of accounts is not within the purview of this Commission.  Accordingly, the case of the complainant cannot be said to be maintainable.

Points no.ii & iii.

From the discussions as made above, the other points are not necessary to discuss. Hence it is so ordered:

ORDER

Case is dismissed exparte against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 4^thday of April,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.          

                                                                                                                            Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                       President

 

 

                                                                                                        Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                             Member