Orissa

Ganjam

CC/37/2021

Sri Santosh Kumar Rauta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vijaya Sales Corporation - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Balakrishna Polai

22 Mar 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, GANJAM, BERHAMPUR.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/37/2021
( Date of Filing : 19 Mar 2021 )
 
1. Sri Santosh Kumar Rauta
S/o Late Gopinath Rauta, At/Po Lal Singh, Ps: Bhanjanagar, Ganjam, Odisha.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Vijaya Sales Corporation
Tata Benz Square, Berhampur, Ganjam, Odisha.
2. Managing Director/Proprietor Of PIXEL Trading Co.
L-27/12, DLF-11, Gurgram, Haryana-12200.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Dr. Aswini Kumar Mohapatra PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Karunakar Nayak MEMBER
 
PRESENT:Mr. Balakrishna Polai, Advocate for the Complainant 1
 
Dated : 22 Mar 2021
Final Order / Judgement

22.03.2021

            The learned counsel for the complainant is present. Heard him on the point of admission. Perused the record. It is ascertained from the complaint petition that the complainant is a businessman purchased different items from different persons including O.P.No.1and 2  for the purpose of carry on business by maintaining a retailer counter of variety store at Bhejiput with the name and style of M/s Gayatri Super Trading. As thus he purchased CFL Bulbs in the year 2019 for three times from O.P.No.1 & 2 for the commercial purpose of resale through retailer. As the bulbs purchased by the complainant are defective/damages as receiving complain from his customers the complainant approached the O.Ps for replace or refund the price but the O.Ps refused to refund the price or replace the defective items for which the complainant incurred financial loss and damages reputation in public market. Hence this complaint.

            “Consumer” means any person who buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of default 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 default payment when such uses is made with the approval of such  person but does not include a person who obtained such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose.

                        The present complainant had purchased the goods for resale as a business man who is doing his business for raising profit, hence in our considered view the complainant is not a consumer and not coming under the perview of the C.P. Act, 2019.

  

 Further this Commission by relying upon a citation passed by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in Milan Barot & Ors versus Mukesh Haridat Bhatta & Anr 2011(2) CPR 12 such as:- “Business dispute is to be adjudicated in a Civil Court and not in a consumer court”. In the light of the above decision of law the case is not admitted and dismissed in limine.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Dr. Aswini Kumar Mohapatra]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Karunakar Nayak]
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.