DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.44 of 18
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 15.03.2018
DATE OF ORDER: -21.03.2018
Ashok Aggarwal aged 52 years son of Shri late Bhim Sain Aggarwal, Proprietor of M/s Bhim Sain Aman Kumar, 62, New Grain Market, Bhiwani.
……………Complainant.
VERSUS
- Umesh Singhal (Director) Haywards (5000) Brand owned by SAB, Millar (India) having bottling plant Advance Bottling and Packaging, Head Office 3, Ganpati Building Opp. Madhu Hotel, Yamuna Nagar. Second Address: Umesh Singhal, HUDA Colony, H. No. 218, Yamuna Nagar.
………….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Smt. Sudesh, Member
Present:- Shri Arvind Dahiya, Advocate, for complainant.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
Brief facts of the present complaint are that the OP had approached to the complainant to growth his business of mineral water and soda in Bhiwani city and around of Bhiwani city. It is alleged that the respondent assist the complainant to become the super sockets of the company of the OPs. It is alleged that the OP entered into an agreement with the complainant on dated 7.8.2015 and as per this agreement the complainant had deposited Rs. 5 lacs in favour of the respondents’ company against RTGS No. STBPR52015080601487626 dated 6.8.2015. It is alleged that as per this agreement it was agreed that annual interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum would be paid to the complainant for the refundable security of Rs. 5 lacs and Rs. 3000/- would be paid against Godown rent. It is further alleged that after entering into agreement the OP started his business with the complainant but the OP has not sent any employee for marketing of the goods supplied by the OPs. The complainant made several requests to the OP to send his employee to do the market of your goods, but the OPs did not pay heed in this regard. It is alleged that after lapse of more than one year, the OP has not paid single penny to the complainant due to which the complainant has suffered a lot mental agony, physical harassment and economic loss. Hence this complaint.
2. We have heard the counsel for the complainant. In view of the facts stated in the complaint, the preset complaint has been filed by the complainant for not performing the part of contract by the respondents. The complainant has only filed the copy of legal notice dated 25.4.2017. No other document has been filed by the complainant in support of his contention. A consumer complaint is maintainable before the Consumer Fora under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 1986, (as amended upto date) herein after called “Act”. The complainant must be a consumer as defined in Section 2 (d) of the “Act”. The Section 2 (d) of the “Act” reads as under:-
(d) "consumer" means any person who—
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who 'hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes;
Explanation.— For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment;
From the bare perusal of the definition of ‘consumer’ the complainant cannot be said to be a consumer of the respondents. The complainant has entered into agreement with respondent and deposited Rs. 5 lakh with respondent and started his business. The complainant has alleged that the respondent has not deputed their employee for marketing of the goods supplied by the respondents to the complainant. The complainant has claimed the refund of security amount of Rs. 5 lakh from the OP alongwith interest and compensation etc. on various allegations made by the complainant against the respondents. The complainant has purchased the goods for re-sale purposes. The complainant also does not fall within the “explanation” of the said section regarding the commercial purpose. According to the said “explanation”, ‘the commercial purpose does not include used by a person of goods bought and used by him’. From the facts as stated by the complainant in his complaint, he has purchased the goods from the respondents were not used by him and the same were sold by the complainant to various consumers.
3. Considering the facts of the case, it is clear that the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the “Act”. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed. The complainant shall be at liberty to take legal recourse according to the provisions of law, if so advised. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 21.03.2018. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Sudesh)
Member.
