Complaint No.:    7/2016

Orders

The aforesaid complaint came on today’s board to hear on admission and to issue notice to the respondent.

        The case of the complainant is that, complainant is a businessman and he is running his business for his livelihood. To run his business he has contacted respondent to supply the coconut powder under consigned sale agreement towards the supply of the materials. As security deposit he has deposited Rs.3 lakhs by way of RTGS on 15.04.2015 through Indian Bank Hubli in favour of the respondent as per the agreement. Despite deposit of the amount the complainant did not complied as per the undertaking given under the agreement. The respondent supplied meager quantity of consignment and had committed deficiency in service. Aggrieved by the non compliance even after repeated requests issued legal notice on 01.10.2015. Despite service of the notice not complied. Hence the complainant filed the instant complaint praying issue direction to the respondent to refund Rs.3.20 lakhs with interest @18% from the date of payment, for payment of Rs.1 lakh towards compensation towards loss of business and reputation, to pay Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5000/- towards cost of the proceedings.

In support of his claim and reliefs the respondent relied on consignee sales agent agreement entered between complainant and respondent dt.16.03.2015.

Heard. Proceed to pass the order

On perusal of the complaint coupled with submission made by the complainant it is evident that the complainant is carrying business. Respondent is residing at Laxmi Nagar, Chinchapad Kalyan (W), (MS). The further case of the complainant is that towards payment for consignment he remitted the amount by RTGS payable to the respondent at Maharashtra. On perusal of the pivotal documents of the complainant i.e. agreement ‘consignee sales agent agreement’ is entered between two firms. complainant is of M/s.Sayyad Communication and respondent is of M/s.Gargi Associates. As per the nomenclature of the said agreement the transaction is of & in between principal & agent. Under those circumstances it has to be decided whether complainant is  a consumer and respondent is a service provided as defined under CP Act. Our answer to this is not. In this regard we would like to relay on 1995 (6) SCC 566 (SC) Vijaya Traders vs.Bajaj auto; RP 26361/06 (NC) MAruti Udyog vs.Arjun sing & anr. Further perusal of the said agreement reveals it is a mutual agreement to carryout the transaction in the capacity of principal and agent which do not comes within the definition and meaning consumer & service provider. So also in addition to this the respondent establishment is situated at Maharashtra. By mere paying amount towards the consideration of the consignment by RTGS through Indian Bank, Hubli payable to respondent at Maharashtra will not give cause of action for the instant complaint at Dharwad to comes within the purview of jurisdiction of this Forum. That apart though complainant stated in the complaint he is carrying the business for livelihood he has not shown any appulsive evidence to show that the income derived from the business is the only source of his livelihood. Hence taking into consideration of all these facts, nature of the transaction, nature of the establishment of the Firms & the transaction between principal and agent the present complaint is devoid from the purview of definition of consumer complaint as defined under sec. 2 (1) (c) of CP Act. Hence the present complaint is not maintainable Accordingly the complaint is dismissed.