MRS. SUSMITA MISHRA, PRESIDENT :-
The Complainant namely Sri Biswajit Das has filed a Consumer Complaint bearing C.C.No 48 of 2024 under the prevision of Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act,2019 against the above name OPs with allegation stated therein and prayed for a direction:
“ to direct the OPs to pay the outstanding dues of the Complainant towards the training fees of Rs.16,97,882/- along with Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony Rs.5,000/- for cost of litigation and Rs.15,000/- for the cost of business.”
Brief facts of the case;
Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant are that the Complainant and Op No.1 & 2 are business partners and he is the proprietor of JKD Associates situated at Anuapada Chhaka, Ps- Derabish, Dist:-Kendrapara. It is also stated by the Complainant that Ops after due discussion of the Complainant given opportunity through Mail to conduct a General Duty Assistance (GDA) programme under OSDA and he had agreed with the proposal of the Ops to conduct the training programmme.The Complainant given the said computer programme to 114 members of Students and the training fees has been fixed at Rs.14,07,662/- (Rupees fourteen lakh seven thousand six hundred sixty two) only, Rs. 1,15,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifteen thousand) only pending against the Ops towards CSR programme including centre setup. Ops also promised and agreed to pay Rs.1,75,000/-( Rupees One Lakh seventy five thousand) only towards the hostel dues of the students taken part in the above said programme.
After completion of the said programme the Complainant made requested the Ops to pay the amount of Rs.16,97,662/- and submitted all the bills before the Ops. Despite repeated requests, but the Ops did not turn off and completely slept over the matter and till yet do not pay the amount. After that, the Complainant intimated the Ops through E-mail and requested to make payment of the amount, but in vain. Finally, on 12.03.2024, he issued a legal notice to Ops through Regd. Post with A.D. regarding his grievance, but again the Ops did not pay any heed to the requests of the Complainant. As a result, alleging gross negligence on part of the Ops, this Consumer complaint was filed by the Complainant along with documents (Marked as C-1 to C-10) before this Commission.
The Op No.2 has contested the present case through his learned Advocate and has raised preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the complaint case. The learned Advocate on behalf of the Op No.2 submitted that the complainant is not a “Consumer” under the C.P.Act as the Complainant has preferred the instant application being a business partner to recover the outstanding training fees of Rs.16,97,662/- and the complainant filed without any cause of action. Hence, the present complaint may kindly be discussed in the interest of Justice.
Arguments heard on behalf of the Complainant carefully perused the records and documents available therein. Now the only question is to be considered:-
Whether the Complainant is a Consumer or not?
To resolve this issue, it is seen that the Ops submitted in his preliminary objection that the Complainant has preferred the instant application being a business partner to recover the outstanding training fees of Rs.16,97,662/- .Hence the matter relates to a business partner to another business partner. In the instant case, the Complainant also admitted that the Complainant and both the Ops are business partner being the proprietor of JKD Associated to conduct a Computer Training Programme at Anuapada Chhaka, Ps-Derabish, Dist:-Kendrapara in his consumer complaint as well as his written notes of argument. As such according to own admission of the Complainant that he is a business partner of the Ops and having his Computer Institution and the Complainant given the said computer training programme to 114 members of Student for which the Complainant is not a consumer.
In view of the above facts and circumstances as well as settled principle of Laws by the Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, it is presume that the entire Act of 2019 reveals round only ”Consumer and it is designed to protect his interest and it provides for “Business to Consumer” disputes and not for “Business to Business” dispute when person avail service for “Consumer as defined in said Act he will to establish that services were availed “ exclusively for purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self employment” .It is the settled principle of law that the “Consumers” to whom any service provided or agreed to be provided any file a complaint as “Consumer” before this Commission’. So, in the instant case the Complainant is the “Business Partner” with the Ops and how he will be treated as a “Consumer” under the provisions of C.P.Act,2019.There is no consideration to be paid by the Complainant to the Ops and as such the present consumer complaint is not maintainable before this Commission as per “Business - to- Business.” dispute. Therefore, we dismiss this consumer complaint, but grant opportunity to the Complainant to seek his grievance(s) before the “Appropriate Forum”/ “Appropriate -Authority” Hence the order:-
O R D E R
Taking into the all facts and circumstances involved in this case, the Consumer Complaint petition is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed .But no order as to costs.
Accordingly the present Consumer Complaint bearing C.C.No 48/2024 is disposed off.
Issue extract of the copy to this order to the parties concerned.
Pronounced in the open Commission on this the 11th day of November -2024.
I, agree.
SD/- SD/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
