Date of Filing : 23.05.2011

  Date of Order : 28.01.2012

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR

Dated 28^th JANUARY 2012

PRESENT

Sri. T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH        ……..                    PRESIDENT

Sri. T.NAGARAJA                           ……..                   MEMBER

Smt. K.G.SHANTALA                      ……..                    MEMBER

Consumer Complaint No. 133 / 2011

Smt. S. Radhika,

W/o. V. Shridhar, Aged about 35 years,

R/at: Kuvempu Nagar, Antharagange Road,

Kolar Town & District.

(By Sri. A.V. Ananda, Adv.)                                  ……. Complainant

V/s.

1. The Manager,

    M/s. Intex Technologies (India) Ltd.,

    D-18/2, Okhla Indl. Area, Phase-II,

    New Delhi – 110 020.

2. The Manager,

    M/s. Intex Technologies (India) Ltd.,

    No. 2/23, 1^st Floor, New Raja Building,

    Above Andhra Bank, N.R. Road,

    Bangalore – 560 002.                                          …… Opposite Parties

ORDER

By Sri. T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH, PRESIDENT

This Complaint is filed by the Complainant u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.       Complainant contends that she is a Proprietor of the SAV Enterprises situated at Kolar and OP1 approached the Complainant to become a super stockiest i.e., Distributor of the Intex Company products and Complainant agreed and paid Rs.2,50,000/- to the OP on 03.01.2011 and the OP delivered the products i.e., Mobiles of their Company.  OPs have undertaken that they will appoint professional sales representative to work at stocking locations by having primary office, but till today OP has not appointed any primary office at Kolar nor appointed any sales persons to sell those products and as such Complainant could not sell any product and she has suffered huge loss.  Even though the Complainant approached the OP, there is no response and they are not discharging their duties properly and they are not providing proper service as agreed.  On the other hand, they are threatening the Complainant with dire consequences.  Therefore, there is deficiency of service.  Hence, this Complaint is filed for directing the OP to repay the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and to direct the OP to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as damages.

3.       Ops were served and they remained absent.  Ops have not filed any version. 

4.       The points that arise for consideration are as under:

(1)     Whether the Complainant proves alleged deficiency in service by the Ops?

(2)     What order ?

5.       Our findings on the above points are as under:

          (1)     Negative

          (2)     As per final order

REASONS

6.       Point No. 1 – In our opinion, the contention of the Complainant that there was deficiency in service by the OP is not acceptable.  The transaction between the parties is only a commercial transaction and the Complainant has not availed any service from the OP.  Complainant has only purchased some goods from the OP as a distributor.  The only allegation against OP is that they were required to appoint professional sales representative to work at stocking locations by having primary office, but OP has failed to do so.  In our opinion this is not a service which is required to be rendered by the OP for any consideration.  Basically, transaction is only with respect to purchasing of goods from the OP as a distributor.  Hence, appointment of sales representative is nothing to do with the purchase of goods by the Complainant. There is no allegation of any defect in the materials purchased by the Complainant.  Moreover, when the Complainant is a distributor, it is for her to look after that business and she cannot expect the OP for appointing any sales representative.  The appointment of sales representative is distinct from the purchase of goods by the Complainant and that is not related to the purchase of goods.  Hence, no service was required to be rendered for any consideration by the OP.  Hence, there is no question of any deficiency of service.  Relating to other allegations the Complainant shall be at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court.  Hence, this Complaint is held against Complainant.

7.       Point No. 2 – In view of the finding on Point No. 1, the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Hence, we pass the following:

ORDER

          Complaint is dismissed.

          Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 28^th day of January 2012.

T. NAGARAJA                K.G.SHANTALA                 T.RAJASHEKHARAIAH

    Member                               Member                           President

SSS