ORDER

BY SRI.H.R.SRINIVAS, PRESIDENT.

1. The complainant has filed this complaint u/Sec. 35 of the C.P Act, 2019 alleging that OP has not paid 50%Rs. 60,000/- towards the materials purchased and also for the damages of Rs. 45,000/- for causing him mental agony, loss and legal fee and expenses, and also Rs. 15,000/- towards notice and other reliefs as the forum deems fit under the circumstances of the case

The brief facts of the complaint are:

2. That the complainant is a proprietor of “Mats Print Pack” doing offset printing and has experienced in the field and entered into business transaction with OP No.1 and 2.  He is a senior citizen.    OP placed order to him to supply “epilepsy poster” on 22.12.2021 to be printed in 11 different regional languages for a sum of Rs. 71,971/-.   OP 2 gave a breakup for which the posters to be printed and assured that 50% of the value of the order would be paid and requested him to proceed with the printing work.  OP did not mention anything about mode of payment in the purchase order, which is a deliberate one.  Complainant proceed with the work and 80% of the work was already over by investing his own hard earned money to the extent of Rs.60,000/- to purchase the materials only.  On 24.12.2021 when the complainant sought for the money as he has invested his own money to purchase the materials OP 2 informed and threatened that no amount would be payable at the movement and will be paid after 45-50 days the payment would be made only after completion of the printing work and delivery of the posters.   Knowing fully well that the complainant has procured materials by investing his money for the purpose of printing the posters in favour of OP No.1 and that it is not possible for the complainant to go back to find out alternate customers in case OPNo. 1 cancels the order.  By accepting and to execute the printing of the epilepsy posters of OPPOSITE PARTY No. 1 he was deprived of taking further printing order of high value and profits from other customers. He had to forego orders fetching more profits.   He has wasted his precious time of 84 days in getting approval of OP1 in respect of the design and translations.  In spite of repeated requests and demand to pay 50% of the advance, OP neglected and committed deficiency of service in canceling the order and hence, prayed to allow the complaint.

 3. Upon the service of notice, OP appeared before the Form through their Advocate and filed version.  In the version filed by OP 1 it is contended that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts and that the complaint is filed to recover Rs.60,000/- which he had spent to purchase the materials.  There is no relationship of consumer and service provider as no service has been sought by the complainant with OPs and further OP is in the business of publishing and engaged in the services of complainant for printing epilepsy posters in 11 language for which he called quotation on 11.11.2021.  During the negotiation, purchase order was issued to the complainant, whereas the conditions mentioned in the quotation was not acceptable.  Complainant was asked to share the draft of the posters through e-mail before proceeding with the final print.  Since the complainant did not share the same, OP No.1 was constrained to cancel the order through e-mail dated 24.12.2021.  In spite of it, complainant has filed this complaint.  OP has not committed any deficiency in service.  On the other hand, Op himself has sought the services for printing of the posters which was later cancelled. 

In this case, OP is the consumer and complainant is the service provider. A service provider cannot a file a case against a consumer by invoking provisions of C.P Act and hence, this complaint is not maintainable.  There must be deficiency in service by the service provider to the consumer or there must be imperfection in the service provided to the consumer or there must be unfair trade practices which are prerequisite to maintain the complaint whereas, in this case no such things have happened.  Moreover the transaction between the complainant and OP is of business in nature and commercial transaction and the C.P Act do not allow to file a complaint when the matter is of commercial in nature. OP 2 and 3 are the employees of OPPOSITE PARTY No. 1 and they are not necessary parties as they have not acted or carried out any deficiency in service in their personal capacity.  Complainant is not entitled for any of the relief and complainant is not entitled to the prayer.  Denying all the allegations made in each and every para of the complaint, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.   

In the version filed by OP 2 and 3 it is contended that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and there is no cause of Action for the complainant to file this complaint before this Commission.  OP No.1 is also a company having distinct entity on its own and a legal existence.  This complaint is not maintainable against OP 1, 2 and 3 as they have not rendered and agreed to provide any services to the complainant. OP 2 and 3 are the employees of OP 1 and there is no personal liability whatsoever against them.  The complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties.  No relief has been sought against OP 2 and 3. The complaint is liable to be dismissed as they have not rend3ered any services and prayed for the dismissal of the same. 

  4.    In order to prove the case, both parties filed their affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1)Whether there is relationship of consumer and service provider between complainant and the OP?

2. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

5.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO.1:          In the  Negative

POINT No.2 and 3: Do not survive for consideration.

                                        For the following.

REASONS

6.     POINT No.1:-

        Perused the complaint, version, affidavit evidence and the documents produced by respective parties.  The documents produced by the complainant clearly shows that the OPs have placed orders with the complainant for printing of 4000 posters of “epilepsy in English plus in 10 language the value of which is Rs.61,600/-, packaging charges CGST and SGST in all  Rs.71,197/-. This order is dated 22.12.2021.  Whereas on December 24.12.2022, as per Ex.P-2, it is mentioned that “as per our conversation, the purchase order No.6 dated 22.12.2021 is cancelled. On perusing the Ex.P-3 and 4 the complainant has purchased some materials on 22.12.02021 and on 19.12.2021 itself in order to carry out the order placed by OPs. Ex.P-5 is the proof of the materials to be printed.   On 27.12.2021 complaint issued a legal notice demanding the amount which he had paid towards purchase of the materials in order to print the posters.  Ex.P-9 and 10 are the notices.  

        7. It is admitted by OP No.1 that they have placed order for printing of “epilepsy posters” in 11 languages for which the complaint has submitted quotation on 11.11.2021.  The conditions were not acceptable for OP No.1 and hence, complainant was asked to share the draft of posters dated 17.12.2021 before proceeding with the final print of the same. Whereas complainant did not share the draft of the posters and OP No.1 was constrained to cancel the order through e-mail dated 22.12.2021.  It is contended that the matter is of business in nature, and OP have availed the service s of the complainant and hence, this complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has filed this complaint to recover the money from the OP. 

8. On perusing the above contentions it becomes clear that the complainant wants to recover the amount he has spent to purchase the materials to execute the order placed by the OPs in order to get the posters of “epilepsy printed” in different languages. It is to be considered here that it is in the nature of business nature and that the OPs have not offered any services to be provided to the complainant, whereas on the other hand OPs have sought the services of the complainant.  This is a business transaction between the complainant and the OPs and hence there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and OP and hence, complaint is not maintainable under the provisions of C.P Act.  Hence, we answer point No. 1 in the negative and Point No.2 and 3 do not survive for our consideration and hence, we pass the following:

ORDER

1. Complaint is dismissed.
2. The parties to bear their own cost. However it is made clear that the complainant is at liberty to file the suit for recovery of the money from the OPs in respect of money spent by him in purchasing the materials to carry out the orders of the Ops.
3. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note:You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Commission on this 21^st DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022)

MEMBER                 MEMBER                 PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

MEMBER                 MEMBER                PRESIDENT

RHR*