Kerala

Malappuram

CC/289/2020

SHAJAHAN KM - Complainant(s)

Versus

HALONIX TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD - Opp.Party(s)

05 Jan 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
MALAPPURAM
 
Complaint Case No. CC/289/2020
( Date of Filing : 17 Nov 2020 )
 
1. SHAJAHAN KM
KOORIMANNIL MELEMANNIL HOUSE PULLILANGADI ANNAKAYAM PO PROPRIETOR RAYYAN MARKETING AGENCIES ERAMUDUKKU ANAKKAYAM PO MANJERI
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. HALONIX TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD
REGISTERED OFFICE B31 PHASE 11 NOIDA DIST GAUTHAMBUDH NAGAR 201305
2. BRANCH MANAGER
BRANCH OFFICE HALONIX TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD BUILDING NO 7/378/A MANNAM MAKKANI PO NORTH ERNAKULAM
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. MOHANDASAN K PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. PREETHI SIVARAMAN C MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 05 Jan 2022
Final Order / Judgement

By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT

1.Complaint in short is as follows:

        The complainant is doing business of sales of electrical goods like LED lights, Bulbs, switches, chocks etc. He, with the object of starting a self-employment scheme for lively hood availed GST registration and applied for authorized distributership of the opposite parties.  The opposite parties appointed the complainant as authorized distributer of the company in the year 2016-2017, 2017-2018 and also issued a certificate of authorization. The complainant as authorized distributer purchased goods from the opposite party company and also hired service for consideration.    The opposite parties promised service and charged commission for the same.  The customers used to purchase goods from the complainant and the complainant was responsible to the customers not only for the quality of the goods but for service also.

2.     The complainant purchased several articles from2nd opposite party till 11/12/2019 and on that day the 2nd opposite party had taken back defective articles from the complainant shop godown and value of the articles taken back was adjusted towards the pending payment.  As per balance sheet on 11/12/2019 there was a liability to pay complainant an amount of Rs.30,178.54/- (Rupees Thirty thousand one hundred seventy eight and fifty-four paisa only). The 2nd opposite party did not cease supply of goods. They also not clear the balance amount and not taken back the defective goods which has been returned from the customers.   The process of returning of defective goods by the customers are still continuing. The opposite parties had offered replacement guaranty.  The defect was that bulbs were not at all luminous, false short of brightness, instead of 9W the brightness varies 4W to 5W and some of the articles were blinking. Since 11/12/2019 customers returned number of defective articles as stated in the list attached to the complaint. The complainant alleges deficiency in service against opposite parties. The complainant constantly contacted   2nd opposite party to take back the defective articles and also to pay compensation to the complainant.   The complainant sent Email on 14/01/2020 but the response of the 2nd opposite party was indifferent.  The quantity of goods shown in the chart of complaint remain as godown dead stock. But returning of defective goods are still continuing.  The complainant submits that from the entire transactions the complainant is entitled Rs.3,05,102.83/- (Rupees Three lakh five thousand one hundred and two and eighty-three paisa only) from the opposite parties and interest thereon.  The opposite party also liable to compensate financial loss suffered by complainant due to negligence of the manufacturing defective goods   and also liable for dereliction of duty.   The opposite parties should have taken steps to examine the quality of the goods which are kept in the godown of the complainant and also liable to take back the defective goods with compensation and interest to the complainant.  The complainant suffered his job and also caused mental agony due to the negligence and dereliction of duty on the part of opposite parties. Hence the complainant prays for direction to the opposite parties to check the quality of the damaged goods returned from the customers which remain as dead stock in the godown of the complainant and also compensate the complainant by payment of Rs.3,05,102.83/- (Rupees Three lakh five thousand one hundred and two and eighty three paisa only) along with cost.

3.             On  admission  of  the  complaint  notice  was  issued  to  the  opposite  parties

and despite  receipt  of  notice  no  version  is  seen  filed  by  the  opposite parties.  The

 

complainant filed an application for issuance of an advocate commissioner in the matter and the commissioner filed a report accordingly. The opposite parties did not file version and so set them exparte.

4.         The complainant filed affidavit and documents.  Documents marked as Ext. A1 to A10. Commissioner’s report marked as Ext.C1. Ext.A1is a copy of Licence from Anakkayam Grama Panchayath dated 10/08/2020, Ext.A2 is a copy of Certificate of Authorisation 2016-2017, Ext.A3 is a copy of Certificate of Authorisation 2017-2018. Ext A4 is a copy of Customer Ledger for the period 01/04/2017 to 31/03/2018, Ext A5 is a copy of Customer ledger for the period 01/04/2018 to 03/01/2019, Ext.A6 is a copy of Customer ledger for the period 01/01/2019 to 06/02/2019, Ext.A7 is a copy of Customer ledger for the period 01/04/2019 to 18/12/2019, Ext A8 is a Legal Notice with postal receipts dated 03/07/2020, Ext A9 is a copy of reply Notice dated 13/08/2020. Ext.A10 is a List of Halonix damaged materials as on 31/08/2020.

5         The case of the complainant is that he is doing business of sales of electrical goods as self-employment for his livelihood.  But the goods involved in the complaint availed from the opposite parties can be seen for resale which is categorically excluded from the purview of Consumer Protection Act.  The goods availed from the opposite parties are meant for sale to customers, that means for resale.  The Commission realise the grievance of the complainant as a businessman but we cannot ignore the provisions of the relevant law.  The goods availed from the opposite party is not using for the personal purpose of the complaint.  Though the complainant has got a case that he is doing business of self-employment, the advocate commission report says otherwise.    The commissioner has reported that there were two workers working at the establishment of complainant at the time of her inspection.  A self-employed person is not authorised to engage workers under him.  So, complainant is not entitled for the exemptional clause of self-employment provided under the Consumer Protection Act.    The allegation against opposite party may be right, but we are of the view that the dispute does not fall under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 1986 or 2019.  

6.         In the light of above facts the dispute between complainant and opposite parties cannot be entertained by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and we dismiss the complaint. 

                         Dated this 5th day of December, 2022.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. MOHANDASAN K]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. PREETHI SIVARAMAN C]
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.