West Bengal



Goutam Chakraborty. - Complainant(s)


M/S shree Ram Chemical Industries, Rept, by its Manager. - Opp.Party(s)

Suvro Chakroborty

21 Sep 2023


Dist Purba Bardhaman - 713101
Complaint Case No. CC/124/2023
( Date of Filing : 11 Sep 2023 )
1. Goutam Chakraborty.
S/O Lt. Kanai Lal Chakraborty, A7, Ispat Palli, P.O. Bidhan Nagar, P.S. New Township, 713212.
Paschim Barddhaman
West Bengal.
1. M/S shree Ram Chemical Industries, Rept, by its Manager.
7th Floor, P-11, New Howrah Bridge Approach Road, 700001.
West Bengal
 HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Subrata Hazra (Saha) PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Atanu kumar Dutta MEMBER
Dated : 21 Sep 2023
Final Order / Judgement

      Order Date: 21.09.2023 .


The complaint is moved by the Counsel.

Heard. Considered.

Complainant said that this transaction under the complaint petition in between OP and him is business for maintaining his livelihood and employed himself in this business.

This Commission carefully gone through the entire materials as supplied by the complainant as document with regard to this petition. On perusal of those we find this complainant is nothing but a distributor/supplier of these goods (Bleaching Powders) when he took 48 bags of bleaching powder from the manufacturer-OP in lieu of Rs. 40,200/- paid on 3.09.2020 for supplying those to the customer-Durgapur Project Limited on 28.08.2020. The goods were supplied on 15.09.2020 which were rejected by the D.P. Ltd. for their bad quality of goods (Bleaching Powder).  Manufacturer-OP took return of 40 bags out of 45 bags on undertaking to take rest 5 bags subsequently. The complainant further submitted that the OP returned Rs. 33,512/- by cheque on 17.01.2021 but which was dishonoured for insufficient funds. Now the complainant for not taking rest 5 bags of goods by the Manufacturer which was of Rs. 13,512/- came to this Commission. The complainant further stated that to solve this dispute he issued a letter on 27.08.2023 but no result.

So, from this sphere of complaint this transaction in between the parties is purely a transaction in the field of commerce. Complainant is a supplier/distributor who took huge bags of bleaching powder for his commercial monetary gain as retailer from the manufacturer.  Ld. Complainant-Counsel tried his level best to draw the attention of this Commission on saying about livelihood of this complainant with regard to this distributorship business.  Also said that the complainant himself do this business as supplier. He placed a citation which was on revision decided by the N.C.D.R.C. in Revision Petition No. 1029 of 2004 (National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. PV Krishna Reddy ) but we find fact of this decision of the N.C.D.R.C. is not same to this instant litigation/complaint. A distributor or retailer or order-supplier never be considered as “consumer” in true sense, when he does not purchase the goods for his own consumption with or without consideration from any manufacturer-OP.  45 bags of bleaching powder probably not purchased from this OP for his own use, surely he purchased it in the sector of commerce when supplying the goods /articles he wanted to gain much money from his purchased rate as distributor /supplier from the D.P. Limited customer.  When needless to mention this D.P. Limited may be considered as consumer against him but he himself never be worthy to be considered as consumer against the manufacturer of the goods what he demands.

Moreover, we find practically cause of action of this litigation arose in the year 2020 ( i.e 26.09.2020 and 02.10.2020) when the OP took back only 40 bags from the custody of the supplier on return or when OP paid cheque of Rs. 33,512/- on 07.01.2021 which alleged as dis-honoured. But subsequent letter dt. 10.08.2022 by the complaint far from the year 2020   is nothing but a creation of a letter to the OP for creating cause of action for this complaint.

So, considering entire papers under the records and this transaction itself in between the distributor/supplier vs. manufacturer, this Commission fails to keep this complaint as admitted position for the hearing stage.  Statute itself binds the hand of this Commission with regard to its admission.

Complainant may have right to urge the matter for dishonor of cheque (if within the time) in the proper court and may have right to agitate the matter before the Civil Court if any violation of agreement in writing is caused in between himself and the OP-Manufacturer in this regard of returning of the goods which not distributed for the cause of its defect.

Thus the complaint is not entertained by ay admission.

Let this record be returned to the Record Room through the Registrar.

     Dictated & corrected by me.





D.C.D.R.C ,PurbaBardhaman.





                     Member                                                President

D.C.D.R.C ,PurbaBardhaman.               D.C.D.R.C ,PurbaBardhaman


[HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Subrata Hazra (Saha)]
[HON'BLE MRS. Lipika Ghosh]
[HON'BLE MR. Atanu kumar Dutta]

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!


Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number


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.