West Bengal

Murshidabad

CC/20/2023

SHUBHANKAR SAHA , PROPRIETOR OF SOUMIK SALES AND SERVICE - Complainant(s)

Versus

UTTAM GHOSH , PROPRIETOR OF SHREE ENTERPRISE - Opp.Party(s)

23 Mar 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Berhampore, Murshidabad.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/20/2023
( Date of Filing : 03 Mar 2023 )
 
1. SHUBHANKAR SAHA , PROPRIETOR OF SOUMIK SALES AND SERVICE
S/O- SUSHIL SAHA, BHATTAPARA , P.O. AND P.S- JIAGANJ
MURSHIDABAD
West Bengal
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. UTTAM GHOSH , PROPRIETOR OF SHREE ENTERPRISE
42, CENTRAL ROAD , SOUDPUR , P.S- KHARDAH , KOLKATA 700110
WEST BENGAL
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. AJAY KUMAR DAS PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. ALOKA BANDYOPADHYAY MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. NITYANANDA ROY MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 23 Mar 2023
Final Order / Judgement

                                                                                        CASE NO.-CC/20/2023

              Subhankar Saha, Prop of Soumik Sales and Services Vs. Uttam Ghosh, Prop of Shree Enterprise.

                                 

3

23.03.23

 

         Complainant takes no step today.

      Today is fixed for admission hearing. The record shows that 15.03.23 was fixed for admission hearing but no steps was taken by the Complainant. Today i.e. 23.03.23 is also fixed for admission hearing but it is a matter of regret that no step is taken by the Complainant.

        The case of the Complainant in short is that He gave Rs. 22,000/- to the OP for purchasing bundle counting machine but the OP has not delivered the same to the Complainant. The Complainant sent legal notice to the OP but the legal notice was returned with the endorsement ‘’Not Known’’ and ‘’Left’’.

        The District Commission has jurisdiction to decide the following two issues/points –

  1. Whether there is any defect of goods or
  2. Whether there is any deficiency in service.

In the instant case the Complainant had not received the goods from the OP and as such this District Commission has no scope to decide whether there is any defect of goods.

 

  It was held by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi that a person only entering into an agreement to buy an article would not fall in definition of consumer till he bought the article …......Sharad Srivastava v. Anil Bali & another............(2004) 1 CPR 352.

        Under such circumstances we are not in a position to admit the complaint and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

    

    Hence, it is

                                                  ORDERED

that the instant case No. CC/20/2023 is not admitted and as such it is dismissed on merit.

    Let plain copy of this order  be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand  /by post under proper acknowledgment  as per rules, for information and necessary action.

        The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

    confonet.nic.in

Dictated & corrected by me.

 

President

 

 Member                         Member                                      President         

 

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. AJAY KUMAR DAS]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. ALOKA BANDYOPADHYAY]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. NITYANANDA ROY]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.