Present : Sri. C.T. Sabu, President
Smt. Sreeja. S., Member
Sri. Ram Mohan R, Member
24th day of February 2023
CC 266/20 filed on 06/07/20
Complainant : Narayanan Namboothiri, Proprietor, Sree Chakreswari
Traders Madayikonam, S/o Narayanan Namboothiri,
Cherikathu Mana, Kuzhikkattukonam,
Madayikonam.P.O, Thrissur- 680 712.
(By Adv. P. Manikandan, Thrissur)
Opposite Party : Amrithaa Agro & Granites Pvt Ltd,
Rep.by Managing Director, T.K.Murugan, No.32,
Bharathiyar Street, VGN Shanthi Nagar,
Chennai- 600 058.
(Ex-parte)
O R D E R
By Smt. Sreeja S. Member:
Complainant is a wholesale trader, selling grocery items to retail sellers and the opposite party is dealing with wholesale business of grocery items in India. Complainant agreed to purchase 2 tones of garlic for Rs.1 lakh at rate of Rs.50 per kg. As per the agreement he transferred Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) to the opposite party on 05/06/20 but they send only 1000kg poor quality of garlic. Thus he committed breach of contract causing loss and agony to the complainant. The act of the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint.
2) On receiving complaint, notice was properly sent to the opposite party. Opposite party not appeared before this Commission and called absent set ex-parte.
3) Complainant appeared before this Commission and filed proof affidavit in which he has affirmed and explained all the averments stated in the complaint in detail. He produced three documents which are marked as Exts. A1 to A3. Ext.A1 is the delivery chalan issued from the opposite party to the complainant dated 12/06/20; Ext.A2 is the copy of lawyer notice dated 24/06/20 and Ext.A3 is the postal receipt dated 25/06/20.
4) Points for consideration are ?
a) Whether complaint is maintainable or not ?
b) Whether there is any unfair trade practice?
c) Reliefs and costs ?
5) Point No.1 :
The opposite party remained ex-parte. The complainant filed proof affidavit retreating the contention raised in the complaint. It is the admitted case that the complainant is a wholesale dealer who sell goods to retailers for the purpose of resale. This contention has been considered by this Commission in the light of Sec 2(A) (1) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The section reads that “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 purpose. For the purpose 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. In the case on hand, the allegation deals with purchase of goods for resale. Going through the section consumer is defined clearly excluding person who obtains goods for resale or for any commercial purpose. The allegation raised in the complaint is pretty clear and definite to the extent that the transaction made for the purpose of resale of goods. Hence we are of the view that the complainant does not come under definition of “consumer” and thus the complaint is not maintainable before this commission. Accordingly Point No.1 is found against the complainant.
6) Point No.2 :
Since the point No.1 answered against the complainant herein we find that this point need not be considered further. Therefore the point is answered accordingly. From the above discussion we find that complaint is not maintainable before this commission and the same is only to be dismissed.
In the result complaint dismissed without cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 24th day of February 2023.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Sreeja S Ram Mohan R C.T. Sabu
Member Member President
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits :
Ext. A1 delivery chalan issued from the opposite party to the complainant
dated 12/06/20.
Ext. A2 copy of lawyer notice dated 24/06/20.
Ext. A3 postal receipt dated 25/06/20.
Id/-
Member
