Karnataka

Gadag

CC/33/2016

Ashwin Parasmal Shah - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vinod Upadhyaya - Opp.Party(s)

U.S.Dharamshy

16 Apr 2016

ORDER

 

ORDER ON ADMISSION

 

          The Complainant has filed a complaint against the OP u/s of C.P. Act, for praying to direct the OP to furnish the necessary details of the Companies Sri Sai Agro Akola VAT, TIN numbers details and direct the OP to pay of Rs.5,90,851/- and with interest @ 15% p.a.

 

          FACT OF THE COMPLAINT: 

      2.     The complainant is carrying a business at Gadag in the name and style “Sangam Trading Company” as General Merchant and Commission Agent. The OP represented himself as a importer and exporter, buyer and seller in all kinds of the food grains and pulses acting as a Broker at Navi Mumbai. The Complainant had sell toordal, urad-dal, yellow-peas regularly to the OP. The complainant used to store the above said dal in the warehouse in vashi under the OP’s instruction and supervision.

 

          3.      Complainant sold urad dal to M/s Sai Agro of Akola through OP acting as a broker and agreed to make the payment within 10 days from the date of dispatch and further OP agreed to furnish the VAT, TIN number, registered place of a business, address and bank details and also agreed to pay interest @ 15% p.a. for delayed payment after the confirmation of quality, quantity and packing. Urad was loaded from warehouse and delivered to Sai Agro of Akola under supervision of OP, the OP instructed the complainant to raise the bill in the name of Sai Agro of Akola thereafter the complainant received a part payment through RTGS/NEFT from Akola.

 

          4.      Further, the complainant stated that he is a registered dealer under commercial taxes as per the statement of account a sum of Rs.5,90,851/- is due and outstanding as on 20.09.2013. The complainant has contacted the OP severally in this regard. But the OP failed to repay the outstanding amount. The complainant has requested the OP to furnish the TIN Number and details of Sai Agro of Akola.

 

          5.      Further complainant stated that the OP is Service Provider to the complainant hence he is under obligation to furnish all the information. The complainant has alleged that the OP had committed breach of trust and faith by non-furnishing the information.

 

          6.      On 16.10.2015, the complainant got issued a legal notice calling the OP to furnish the details of Sai Agro of Akola, but the OP had not reacted for the same. Hence, the complainant had prayed to direct the OP to furnish requisite and necessary information of Sai Agro of Akola or to pay a sum of Rs.5,90,851/- along with the interest @ 15%.

 

          7.      After perusing the complaint and document produced by the complainant, the points arises before us for adjudication of this compliant are as follows:

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer?

2.  Whether the complaint is maintainable under C.P. Act?

3.  What Order?

Our answer to the above points are:

1.  Negative,
2. Negative,
3. As per the final order,

R E A S O N S

 

          8.  POINT NO.1 and 2:   Since both the points are inter-link we proceed to answer both the points together. It is the specific case of the complainant is that, the complainant is a businessmen having registered Firm in name and style “Sangam Trading Company” at Gadag registered at Commercial Taxes and holds a VAT and TIN number.

 

          9.      The complainant had sold the urad dal to one M/s Sai Agro of Akola through OP who had been acted as a broker of Sai Agro had failed to furnish VAT, TIN number and other detailed to the commercial authorities of Karnataka, hence a payment of Rs.5,90,851/- is due and outstanding. The complainant had stated that the OP acted as a broker in between complainant and Sai Agro, Akola hence he is the Service Provider to the complainant. Further the complainant had alleged for non-furnishing the requisite information, the OP had committed breach of trust which is liable for deficiency in service.

 

          10.    In the complaint, complainant himself admitted that he is a running a business through his registered Firm under commercial taxes and obtained VAT, TIN number. The complainant had sold urad-dal to Sai Agro of Akola, it is crystal clear that the complainant had sold the urad of a value which is more than Rs.5,90,000/-. This proves that the complainant is a seller sold the goods to one Sai Agro of Akola. This builds a commercial business relationship between the complainant and Sai Agro, Akola. The complainant has failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove that the OP had played a role of a mediator (Broker) between the complainant and Sai Agro of Akola and also not produced any receipts for consideration received by the OP for rendering the service.

 

          11.    The Section 2 (d) of C.P. Act, 1986 clearly clarifies that the complainant is not a consumer. It says that;

          “Consumer” means any person who –

1. 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
2. (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 purpose).

 

The above Act and facts proves that the complainant is running purely a commercial business his turn-over is nearly Rs.30,00,000/- for three months. Hence, this business done is not for the livelihood. Hence, I relied upon a citation cited in III (2015) CPJ 239 (NC), PRAKASH SCANNER V/s WATTHOUR SYSTEM. It is clearly mentioned as hereunder:

        “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2 (1) (d), 2 (1) (f), 2 (1) (g), 21 (a) (ii) – Consumer – Commercial purpose – Purchase of scanner – Defects – Deficiency in service alleged – State Commission dismissed complaint – Hence appeal – It is clear from partnership deed that firm is to carry business of scanning work – Nowhere it is mentioned that firm is carrying business for livelihood of appellant – State Commission rightly held that appellant is not a consumer.”

 

The complainant is a not a consumer, the complaint is not maintainable u/s 12 of C.P. Act, hence we answer Point No.1 and 2 as Negative.

 

11.  POINT No.2:  In the result of the above findings, we deliver the following:       

 

//ORDER//

          1.   The complaint is not maintainable. Hence, Complaint is hereby dismissed. No order on the costs.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court 16^th day of April, 2016)

 

 

Member

Member

President