Case No. 108/2023   

IN THE MATTER OF

 Manoj Trading Compay, Sodhi Complex-2 Office-First Floor, Kishanpur Tiraha, Ramghat Road, Aligarh (UP) through authorized signatory Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta

                                           V/s

M/s Chirag Traders, Shop No. A18 Naveen Mandi Sthal, Khair Aligarh through authorized signatory

CORAM

 Present:

1. Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President
2. Shri Alok Upadhayay, Member
3. Smt. Purnima Singh Rajpoot, Member

PRONOUNCED by Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President

JUDGMENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant before this commission for  the following reliefs-

1. The Op be directed to reimburse the complainant for Rs.1799470.51 with interest @18% per annum from the date 26.12.2017 to till the date of actual payment.
2. The Op be directed to pay the compensation for mental agony and physical suffering @ Rs 500000 and litigation expenses Rs.25000.

2.  Complainant has stated that complainant is a trading company and deals in food grains and OP also deals in food grain and especially in paddy. On 26.12.2017 complainant supplied 221 bags of paddy weighing 132.600 quintal as per rate Rs.3339.95 per quintal for Rs.4, 42880.02. On 26.12.2017 complainant supplied 227 bags of paddy weighing 136.200 quintal as per rate Rs. 3339.95 per quintal for Rs. 454901.19. On 26.12.2017 complainant supplied 450 bags of paddy 270.000quintal as per rate 3339.95 for Rs. 901689.30. In all transactions complainant  supplied  898 quintal paddy for Rs.1799470.51. Complainant further stated that the paddy was supplied and entrusted to the OP  for dehulling and processing the paddy to convert into bran rice. The labor charges were to be paid on getting the price. Op had agreed for the same and to return the rice after six months but the promise could not be fullfilled by the OP and requested for more time. OP had promised to discharge its obligation in the year 2018 and 2019 with request to extend the time. Complainant remanded the OP in the year 2020  but the transaction could not be carried out due to breaking out the Cowid-19 and on resumstion of the work after lapse of the period of pandemic, Op entered into fresh agreement with a complainant in the month of January ,2022 to remit the price of the paddy supplied with compensation for damages caused to the complainant and asked for repayment of the amount with interest. OP failed to discharge its obligation as agreed and committed breach of promises. OP adopted unfair method or deceptive practice in dealing with the complainant and is liable to reimburse the complainant. Complainant had hired the services of the OP for converting the paddy into bran rice for a consideration and the transaction was made by engaging  the complainant for earning livelihood of the members of the family constituting the complainant company and is consumer under the Act.       
3. Op submitted in WS that the complaint is time barred. Op has further stated that the complainant is a firm and deals in food grains. The alleged amount of rice could not be used by the complainant and in the bills of Mandi Samiti the sale transaction has been mentioned. As per record the paddy was sold and thus the complainant does not fall within definition of consumer under the Act. As per record there is commercial relationship between the parties and the jurisdiction vested in Civil Court. There is no relationship of consumer and service provider between parties and provisions of consumer Act are not applicable. Complainant has alleged to supply the paddy through three bills stating the price and no. of the bills. OP has also denied to have taken any conversation between the parties  and any alleged contact is also denied.          
4. Complainant has filed his affidavit and papers in support of his pleadings. Ops have also filed affidavit in support of their pleadings.
5. We have perused the material available on record and heard the parties counsel.
6. The first question of consideration before us is whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
7. Complainant has stated that he had supplied 898 quintal paddy to the Op for Rs.1799470.51 as per bills of supply filed by the complainant on record. Op has not specifically denied the supply of paddy and it has been stated by the OP that as per record of the complainant the sale was made of the paddy by the complainant and on the basis of sale of the paddy the complainant has been stated not to attain the status of consumer. Complainant has stated on oath that the supply of paddy was made for dehulling and processing the paddy to convert into bran rice and to pay the labor charges on getting the rice. OP has challenged the status of the complainant and conversation of paddy into rice through the affidavit of Manoj Kumar Agrawal filed in support of the WS. Manoj Kumar Agrawal has stated himself to be the authorized signatory of the OP and affidavit furnished by him has not been verified on the basis of personal knowledge of the facts stated in WS whereas complainant verified the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the complainant on the basis of personal knowledge. Thus it cannot be denied that the complainant had supplied the paddy to the OP to convert into rice. Thus complainant stands proved to be the consumer and OP service provider. As regards period of limitation complainant has stated that promises made by the OP  to extend the time to return the paddy after converting into bran rice was not fullfilled by the OP and the period extended to the year 2020 and thereafter Covid 19 pandemic broke out. It is a question of fact which has been verified on behalf of the complainant by the authorized signatory on the basis of personal knowledge and it has not been rebutted on behalf of the OP on the basis of personal knowledge of the authorized signatory of the OP. The complaint has been admitted treating it to be within the period of limitation and commission is vested  with the power to condone the delay under section 69(2) on sufficient cause. So far as question of nature of the transaction is concerned, complainant has stated that the transaction was made by engaging the complainant for earning livelihood of the members of the family constituting the complainant company and thus complainant is consumer within its definition under the Act. Thus the transaction between the parties was not commercial and matter relate to unfair method or deceptive practice in transaction and thus commission is competent to hear and decide the case.  We are of the view that the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount Rs.1799470.51 with interest @18% per annum from the date 26.12.2017  till the date of actual payment.
8. The question formulated above is decided in favor of the complainant.
9. We hereby direct the Op to pay the complainant Rs.1799470.51 with interest @12% per annum from the date 26.12.2017 till the date of actual payment. Op shall also pay to complainant Rs.10000 as litigation expenses.
10. Op shall comply with the direction within 30 days failing which Ops shall be prosecuted for non-compliance in accordance with section 72 of the Act for awarding punishment against him.
11. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties as per rule as mandated by Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
12. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.