SRI JIBAN KRUSHNA BEHERA, MEMBER (I/C)
The complainant has filed this complaint petition, U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in-after called as the “Act”) alleging a deficiency in service against the Ops.
2. The case of the complainant, in short, is that he, being an unemployed youth, decided to carry one business to earn his livelihood. In the present case, the OP No.1 is the manufacturer, OP No.2 is the Senior Sales Officer of OP No.1 and OP No.3 is the Sales Executive of OP No.1. The agent of OP No.1 persuaded the complainant to purchase goods i.e. biscuits and snakes, etc. from their company and on good faith he has agreed with the proposal. OP No.2 & 3 were accompanying the complainant to purchase the products from their OP No.1-Company. The Ops have taken the signatures of the complainant in several printed unfilled forms and thereafter, on 24.2.2022, the OP No.1 offered the complainant to be a super stockist. On 25.2.2022, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to OP No.1 and thereafter, OP No.1 delivered the required goods to the complainant on 1.3.2022. The business of the complainant was running smoothly. Thus, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on 16.7.2022 and a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on 25.7.2022 to the OP No.1 for purchase of further goods, but without any cause and prior intimation, OP No.1 close the business transaction with him and did not deliver the goods as per his order and returned Rs.2,94,984/- on 26.8.2022 after deduction of outstanding credit amount of Rs.5,016/-. In the meantime, some distributors returned some goods due to bad quality of the products. Thus, on 29.7.2022, the complainant rushed to the Ops for exchange of the above goods and showed them the samples which were returned by the distributors and served a damage credit note to the OP No.2. On receipt of the same, OP No.2 visited the business premises of the complainant and collected some damaged goods and assured him to settle the matter soon. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Ops time and again to exchange the damage goods and to deliver fresh goods for continuance of his business transactions, but in vain. Lastly on 2.11.2022, the complainant sent e-mail to one Subrat Mohanty, the RSM of the OP No.1 requesting to settle the matter, but till yet no settlement has been made and lastly OP No.2 & 3 expressed their inability in the matter.
The complainant has further stated that now damage goods valued at Rs.66,601/- is lying in his godown and for non-supply of goods to the distributors and break of business, a sum of Rs.30,000/- is pending against the distributors and further the complainant accrued loss of business for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The Ops have adopted unfair trade practice for promotion of business and misappropriated the amount from the complainant deceitfully for which he sustained mental agony and pecuniary loss. Further, the service rendered by the Ops is imperfect, immoral and unfair trade practice in order to grab the hard earned money of innocent citizen like this complainant for which exemplary action is required to be taken against them.
The cause of action arose for filing of the case on 26.8.2022, when the OP No.1 refunded the amount of the complainant and on 2.11.2022, when the complainant sent complaint letter through e-mail to the RSM. Hence, this case.
To substantiate his case, the complainant relied upon the following documents, which are placed in the record -
- Photocopy of super stockist appointment Form.
- Photocopy of letter showing OP No.2 as Senior Sales Officer.
- Photocopy of letter showing OP No.3 as Sales Executive.
- Photocopy of statement of accounts.
- Photocopy of damage credit note.
- Photocopy of message showing transaction of money.
- Photocopy of complaint in lieu of e-mail.
- Photocopy of tax invoices and e-way Bills.
3. In the present case, OP No.1 did not appear and hence he was set ex parte. OP No.2 appeared, but did not file the written version in stipulated period. OP No.3 appeared and filed his written version.
4. According to OP No.3, the case is not maintainable and the complainant has no cause of action to file the case. The OP No.3 has stated, inter alia, that he was working as Sales Executive under the OP No.1. OP No.1 is the manufacturer of biscuits and snacks. The complainant used to purchase the products from OP No.1 and running his business smoothly. In the meantime, some products are in damage condition before expiry and the complainant informed the said fact to this OP. Soon after receipt of the information, OP No.3 collected some damaged goods from the complainant and sent the same to OP No.2. OP No.3 has also informed the matter to OP No.1 requesting to settle the matter. It is further stated that there was no fault on the part of the OP No.3 for which he is not liable for the delay in processing the matter and the OP No.1 is solely responsible for the same. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the case against him.
5. In view of the above averments of parties, the points for determination in this case are as follows:-
(i) Whether the complainant is a consumer or not?
(ii) Whether the complainant has cause of action to file this case?
(iii) Whether the case is maintainable?
(iv) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops?
(v) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief, as sought for?
(vi) To what other relief(s), the complainant is entitled to?
F I N D I N G S
6. First of all it is to be ascertained as to whether the complainant is a consumer or not. From the pleadings of both the parties and documents produced on behalf of the complainant vide Annexure- 1 to 8, it is established that the complainant, in order to maintain his livelihood, started his own business on the pursuance of the Ops. As per agreement between the parties, the complainant used to pay money from time to time to OP No.1 and taken delivery of products from OP No.1. In the present case, OP No.1 is the manufacturer of the products, OP No.2 is the Senior Sales Officer and OP No.3 is the Sales Executive of the manufacturing unit of OP No.1. From the above, it is held that the complainant is well covered under the previews of definition of a “Consumer” as defined under the Act.
7. To arrive at a just and definite conclusion, it is required first of all, to discuss about the documents produced on behalf of the complainant. From the Super Stockiest appointment Form vide Annexure-1, it is came out that the OP No.1 has issued the same in favour of the complainant to start his business. Annexure-2 is the letter issued by OP No.1 offering the position of Senior Sales Officer in favour of OP No.2. Annexure-3 is the letter issued by OP No.1 offering the position of Sales Executive in favour of OP No.3. Annexure-4 is the statement of account showing transaction of money with the OP No.1 by the complainant. Annexure-5 is the Damage Credit Note. Annexcure-6 is the message showing refund of Rs.2,94,984/- by the OP No.1 to the account of the complainant. Annexure-7 is the complaint lodged by the complainant in lieu of e-mail regarding claim of damage biscuits. Annexure-8 series are the tax invoices and e-way bills issued by the OP No.1 showing purchase of products from the manufacturing unit of OP No.1.
8. From the above documentary evidence produced on behalf of the complainant, it is established that the complainant had purchased the products from the manufacturing unit of the OP No.1 and for that the complainant had paid the money for the same from time to time. It is further made out that to progress his business, the complainant had paid Rs.3,00,000/- in favour of the OP No.1 for purchase of products, but the OP No.1 returned the said amount deducting previous credit amount of Rs.5,016/-. This shows that the OP No.1 had closed the business transaction with the complainant without any just cause and intimation. The complainant has also vividly corroborated the above facts in his complaint petition. That apart, it is also found that the complainant had intimated the OP No.1 about the bad quality of products which were returned by the distributors to the complainant vide Annexure-5, which was left unsettled, as claimed by the complainant.
9. OP No.2, during course of hearing, admitting the averments made in the complaint petition, has submitted that he has no role to play in the matter. Whatever the transaction made by the complainant is with OP No.1. Hence, OP No.2 is not liable for the deficiency in service. Similar is the OP No.3, who has also admitted the case of the complainant and stated that he is not liable for any deficiency in service, rather, the OP No.1 is deficient in rendering service towards the complainant. From the above discussion, it is held that all the opposite parties are entangled with the business transaction of the complainant. In the present case, OP No.1 did not choose to appear and contest the case at least to defend his case.
10. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, it is held that for the above nature and character of the Ops, not only the complainant sustained financial loss but also lost his business which he has started for earning his livelihood. For the sudden closure of the business transaction, return of the amount which was sent by the complainant to OP No.1 for purchase of products and not taken into consideration the damage credit note by itself established that the Ops are deficient in rendering their service towards the complainant which otherwise attributes a deficiency in service against the Ops.
11. In view of the above discussions, it is held that the complainant has sufficient cause of action to file the case and the case is maintainable. As the deficiency in service is well established against the Ops, they are jointly and severally liable for the compensation as claimed for by the complainant.
Hence, it is ordered –
O R D E R
The case of the complainant be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP No.2 & 3 and on ex parte against OP No.1. The Ops are hereby directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for the value of damage goods, break of business and loss of business along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- for sustaining of mental agony and litigation cost to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to realize the same through the process of law.
Pronounced in the open Court of this Commission, this the 22nd day of July, 2024 under my signature & seal of the Commission.
