Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/591/2015

Ravindra B Rudrapure - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager TVC SKY SHOP LTD - Opp.Party(s)

K B Khadakbhavi

28 Nov 2016

ORDER

       ORDER ON MAINTAINABILITY

 

After, perusing the order-sheet there is no representation, once-again time has granted for hearing on maintainable. Though, the opportunity has been given to the complainant put forth his argument towards maintainable. But, fail to put forth the same and the order-sheet revels that, since, from the date of 18.01.2016 neither complainant nor counsel present and there is no any valid ground to urged the matter insptie of giving opportunity. Looking to order-sheet it is proper to pass order on the available documents and pleadings. Hence, the argument of complainant taken as heard.

 

Perused allegations made in the complaint against the OP. The case of the complaint is that, complainant is the distributor of TVS Company and executed between the OP that, TVS Silver distribution partner application form cum agreement executed between the parties and further case of the complainant that, the both parties are agreed with the terms and conditions of the agreement. Accordingly, TVS Company issued the TVS Silver distribution partner in favour of complainant and further alleged that, complainant was paying the material costs to the OP through E-mail. Therefore, the Complaint has been filed this complaint for non supply of material/items an amount of Rs.1,90,000/ and also paid Rs.4,500/- service charges for sending all the items and materials to the opponent company.

 

 

 

 

 

 After perusing the complaint pleading the question arise;

Whether this complainant is come under the purview of U/s 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 or not?   

After details scanning we are of the consider view that, after looking to the pleadings of the complainant it is crystal clear that, the said business transaction is not self livelihood and earning purpose of the complainant and even  there is no any pleadings in respect of the same, that, the complainant is the self employment by doing such business. But, the said transaction are commercial in nature. Therefore, complainant is not a consumer and OP is not a service provider under the purview of U/s 2(1) (d) of C.P. Act for that proposition of law we would like to relied a decision reported in I (2011) C.P.J. I (SC) Wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court as hold that, who purchase the goods or hires or avails the service for commercial purpose is not a Consumer and he is not entitled to maintain complaint against the OP alleged deficiency. But, in the instant case looking to the allegation they are not come under the purview of C.P. Act 1986 and alleged allegation not prima facia made out, as there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence, in our consider view, the complainant is not a Consumer.

 

  We have gone through pleadings of the complaint. It is evident that, the Complainant being a distributor of TVC Company cannot be a Consumer as per the definition there is no privity of contract between the complainant and in respect of any services or agreeing to pay certain amount towards services rendered. Therefore this Complaint is not maintainable accordingly.

 

We proceed to pass the following order:

                        ORDER

The Complaint is dismissed as not maintainable. However liberty is reserved to approach appropriate authority for reddressal of his grievances else were. Returns documents to the Counsel for the Complainant for seeking reliefs.  

 

President                                          Member