FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

SHRI SWAPAN KUMAR MAHANTY, PRESIDENT

The facts, as stated in the complaint are that the OPs are engaged in business of events, promotions, branding, wedding etc. Believing upon the assurance, complainant agreed to promote his catering business through the OPs in and around the City of Kolkata through different channels/media and paid Rs. 2,27,000/-. Despite payment, the OPs did not fulfill their promise and executed an undertaking dated 06.03.2018 to refund the amount of Rs. 2,27,000/- within 16.03.2018 but failed to fulfill their commitment. Acts of the OPs tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant has prayed for refund of Rs. 2,27,000/- along with compensation and litigation cost.

Notice of the complaint were duly served upon the OPs. In spite of service, the OPs did not appear and file their Written Version. Thus, the consumer case runs ex-parte against the OPs.

Complainant Udaylal Kalawat has filed evidence supported by an affidavit. We have heard argument on merit and have also perused the record including documents annexed with the complaint petition.

Complainant alleged that despite payment of Rs. 2,27,000/- the OPs did not promote his catering business in and around the city of Kolkata through different channels/media. Complainant fails to file money receipt showing payment of Rs. 2,27,000/- to the OPs. Even the complainant also fails to produce copy of F.I.R. and charge sheet of Kasba PS case No. 141 dated 12.04.2018 U/ss 420/120B I.P.C. There is also no evidence on the part of the complainant that in course of investigation police seized the money receipt under a seizure list. Except an undertaking dated 06.03.2018 addressed to Mr. Uday with regard to refund of amount, there is no other documents to establish the case of the complainant that he had paid Rs. 2,27,000/- to the OPs. More so, Mr. Uday is not the complainant of the present case. Complainant has not been able to disclose the date when payment was made to the OPs to promote his business.

In our opinion, complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Admittedly, complainant is carrying on catering business and to promote his business, he entrusted OPs. There is no averment in the four corner of the complaint petition that complainant is carrying on business of catering exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self employment. Complainant did not discharge his onus of proof regarding this aspect. Thus, we are of the considered view that the complainant is not a “Consumer” as defined U/s 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

In view of above, we see no merit in the present Consumer Complaint and the same is dismissed ex-parte against the OPs with no order as to costs.

The complainant may agitate his grievance before the competent court of law except Consumer Commission.

Copy of the judgment be supplied to the parties as per rules. Judgment be uploaded to the website of the commission for perusal of the parties.