State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Devnarayan Bhardwaj vs Jataruram on 15 September, 2015
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)
Appeal No.FA/14/122
Instituted on : 21.02.2014
Devnarayan Bhardwaj S/o Bhulauram Bhardwaj,
C/o : K.K. Ojha, Budhavihar Chowk,
Behind Gopal Kirana, Shankar Nagar,
Durg (C.G.) ... Appellant
Vs.
Jatruram, S/o Birbalram,
R/o : Village - Ladkon, P.S. & Tehsil Rajpur,
District Balrampur, Ramanujganj (C.G.) .... Respondent
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MISS HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :-
Shri L.K. Mishra, for appellant.
Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for respondent.
ORDER
Dated : 15/09/2015 PER: - HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.01.2014, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G). (henceforth "District Forum" for short), in Complaint Case No.13/2013. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has partly allowed the complaint of the respondent (complainant) and directed the appellant (O.P.) to pay within a period of one month a sum of Rs.88,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 23.01.2013 till realisaiton. The // 2 // appellant (O.P.) has further been directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards cost of litigation in which advocate fee is also included.
2. Brief facts of the complaint of the respondent (complainant) are that the respondent (complainant) is an agriculturist and is doing agriculture work. The appellant (O.P.) was Managing Director of Brighten India Trade Link Private Limited and the office and residence of the appellant (O.P.) was situated at A-39, Bhatia Garden, City Mopka Road, Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.). On 20.08.2010, the appellant (O.P.) contacted the respondent (complainant) and induced the respondent (complainant) that he is Managing Director of Brighten India Trade Link Private Limited and cultivation of Tulsi is being processed through his company, and if any person invests amount in the company will pay him the double amount after lapse of 13 months and 10 days. The appellant (O.P.) organized a seminar in which he gave his bank account number to the respondent (complainant) and other villagers for depositing the amount and for preparing I.D. On being influenced by the inducement given by the appellant (O.P.), the respondent (complainant) deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.40,000/- on 23.08.2010 and 07.10.2010 respectively in the bank account of the appellant (O.P.). The respondent (complainant) deposited total amount of Rs.90,000/- in the bank account of the // 3 // appellant (O.P.). After lapse of period of 13 months and 10 days the respondent (complainant) demanded the double of the said amount i.e. Rs.1,80,000/-, then the appellant (O.P.) only returned a sum of Rs.2,000/- through cheque to the respondent (complainant) and he is avoiding to make payment of remaining amount Rs.1,78,000/-. The respondent (complainant) came to know from reliable source that the appellant (O.P.) misappropriated crores of rupees of various persons and the appellant (O.P.) dissolved /closed Brighten India Link Private Limited and established a new company in the name of Brighten Life Business at Plot No.8, Utai Road, Vijay Path, Anand Nagar, Durg (C.G.). The respondent (complainant) sent legal notice to the appellant (O.P.) on 16.04.2012 but the appellant (O.P.) did not make payment of the remaining amount and is avoiding to make payment of the amount. Hence, the respondent (complainant) filed consumer complaint before the District Forum and prayed for granting reliefs, as mentioned in the relief clause of the complaint.
3. The appellant (O.P.) filed his written statement and averred that the respondent (complainant) deposited in the account of Brighten India Trade ink Private Limited a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 23.08.2010 and Rs.40,000/- on 07.10.2010 totalling Rs.90,000/- but prior to depositing the said amount, the appellant (O.P.) made aware the respondent (complainant) with the policy and terms and conditions of the // 4 // company and after understanding the policy, terms and conditions of the company, the respondent (complainant) deposited the amount, which is not refundable because there is violation of terms and conditions fixed by the company. The company did not make any promise to the respondent (complainant) that after lapse of period of 13 months and 10 days the company will pay the double of the amount deposited and no agreement has been executed between the appellant (O.P.) and respondent (complainant) in this regard. The respondent (complainant) himself failed to follow the terms and conditions of the company therefore, the appellant (O.P.) is not liable to pay any amount to the respondent (complainant). As per planning and policy, terms and conditions of the company it was the responsibility of the person, who took membership that he will sale the articles / package of the company in the proportion and accordingly he will be given dividend, but the respondent (complainant) did not sale the manufactured article/package of the company and therefore, dividend amount and bonus amount was not given to the respondent (complainant). This is the working policy of the company and not the investment, and Ramnaresh Yadav, who was ex independent distributor of the company explained the respondent (complainant) that this is investment policy and without doing any work and without selling manufactured articles/package of the company double amount would be given. Therefore, the respondent // 5 // (complainant) is not entitled to get any compensation from the appellant (O.P.) and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. Learned District Forum, after having considered the material placed before it by the parties partly allowed the complaint and directed the appellant (O.P.) to pay compensation to the respondent (complainant), as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.
5. The respondent (complainant) has filed documents. A-1 to A-4 are deposit slips, A-5 to A-7 are pay in slip, A-8 is letter dated 28.08.2010 sent b y Brighten India to the respondent (complainant), A-9 is letter dated 10.10.2010 sent by Brighten India to the respondent (complainant), A-10 is notice dated 16.04.2012 sent by the respondent (complainant) to the appellant (O.P.), A-11 and A-12 are brochure.
6. Shri L.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (O.P.) has argued that the respondent (complainant) is not "consumer". The respondent (complainant) received commission from the Brighten India Trade Link Private Limited and the respondent (complainant) deposited the amount for obtaining membership of the said company and he joined the said Company as a member on 28.08.2010. Shri L.K. Mishra, drew our attention towards documents A-8 and A-9, which have been filed by the respondent (complainant) himself and submitted that the payment was received by the appellant // 6 // (O.P.) against the products and the amount was received towards membership amount. The respondent (complainant) is not a "consumer" and the appellant (O.P.) is not "service provider". Therefore, the finding recorded by the District Forum is erroneous and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
7. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (complainant) has supported the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum and submitted that the appellant (O.P.) contacted the respondent (complainant) and induced the respondent (complainant) that he is Managing Director of Brighten India Trade Link Private Limited and cultivation of Tulsi is being processed through his company, and if any person invests amount in the company will pay him the double amount after lapse of 13 months and 10 days. On being influenced by the inducement given by the appellant (O.P.), the respondent (complainant) deposited total amount of Rs.90,000/- in the bank account of the appellant (O.P.). The respondent (complainant) is not Commission Agent of the appellant (O.P.) and the respondent (complainant) did not obtain membership of Brighten India Trade Link Private Limited. The respondent (complainant) deposited the amount in the bank account of the appellant (O.P.) on being influenced by the inducement given by the appellant that if any person invests amount, then double of the // 7 // investment amount would be given, therefore, the respondent (complainant) deposited the amount, hence, the respondent (complainant) is consumer and the appellant (O.P.) is "service provider". The appellant (O.P.) deliberately dissolved / closed Brighten India Trade Link Private Limited and thus cheated the investors, therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Forum, is just and proper and does not suffer from any infirmity and illegality and does not call for interference by this Commission.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the District Forum.
9. Now we shall examine whether the respondent (complainant) is consumer of the appellant (O.P.) ?
10. In the instant case, in para 5 of the complaint, the respondent (complainant) pleaded that on being influenced by the inducement given by the appellant (O.P.), the respondent (complainant) deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 23.08.2010 and Rs.40,000/- on 07.10.2010 in the bank account of the appellant (O.P.). The said amount was received by the appellant (O.P.). According to the respondent (complainant), the appellant (O.P.) induced him to deposit the amount and due to inducement given by the appellant (O.P.), the respondent (complainant) deposited the amount in bank account of the appellant // 8 // (O.P.). The appellant (O.P.) contacted the respondent (complainant) and gave assurance to the respondent (complainant) that if the respondent (complainant) deposits the amount with his company, then he will pay the double amount of the amount invested after lapse of 13 months and 10 days.
11. The respondent (complainant) filed documents Annexure A-8 and A-9 which are letter dated 28.08.2010 and 10.10.2010 respectively sent by Brighten India Trade Link Pvt. Ltd. to the respondent (complainant).
12. In document Annexure A-8, it is mentioned thus :-
"Dear Mr. Jetru Ram Dated 28.08.2010 H Pin - 495001
Congratulations and whole heartedly welcome on becoming the member of Brighten India Trade Link Pvt. Ltd. Family. I am thankful to you that you have decided to choose our plan in this business.
Your User ID : 15667 Sponsor ID : 13358 Upline ID : 14769 Joining Date 23/08/2010 We provide the golden opportunity to all people of society & also provides products of electronics, electricals, home appliances, health care, educational, garments etc. and REWARDS with best BUSINESS PLAN in the mlm industries which fulfills your dreams for success with our business plan with handsome income and a bright future. All can earn more money in short period of time."
13. In document Annexure A-9, it is mentioned thus :-
"Dear Mr. Jatru Ram Dated 10.10.2010 C Pin - 100000
Congratulations and whole heartedly welcome on becoming the member of Brighten India Trade Link Pvt. Ltd. Family. I am thankful to you that you have decided to choose our plan in this business.
// 9 // Your User ID : 16539 Sponsor ID : 13364 Upline ID : 15807 Joining Date 08/10/2010 We provide the golden opportunity to all people of society & also provides products of electronics, electricals, home appliances, health care, educational, garments etc. and REWARDS with best BUSINESS PLAN in the mlm industries which fulfills your dreams for success with our business plan with handsome income and a bright future. All can earn more money in short period of time."
14. In Appeal No.756/2011 - Director, M/s Fine India Sales Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur and two others vs. Mr. Radhe Shyam vide order dated 14.05.2012, this Commission has observed thus :-
"9. It is also worth mentioning that in the complaint, it has not been specified by the complainant/respondent that he availed some service of any of the OPs. Whatever has been stated in the complaint, is only to the effect that on assurance of the O.P.Nos.2 & 3, who are appellant Nos.2 & 3 before us, he became a Member of the appellant No.1/Company by depositing some amount and started getting commission and became part of the Company. Nothing specific has been stated in the complaint as to why the company was paying commission to the complainant/respondent and what he was required to do for the Company and what was required to be done by the appellant No.1/Company. What has actually been agreed between the parties, has also not been brought on record. Neither any agreement nor any proforma of any such agreement, has been filed. Merely bank drafts, statement of bank account etc. have been filed by the complainant/respondent and the copy of the bank statement shows that commission was paid on many occasions by the appellant No.1/Company to the complainant/respondent, and this fact has also been admitted by the complainant/respondent. Thus, it is clear that some material facts have been concealed by the complainant/respondent // 10 // also and he is also required to plead and prove the actual deal between him and the O.P.No.1/Company."
15. From bare perusal of the documents Annexure A-8 and A-9, it appears that the respondent (complainant) obtained membership of Brighten India Trade Link Pvt. Ltd. Family and the respondent (complainant) chose business plan of Brighten India Trade Link Pvt. Ltd. and User ID was provided to the respondent (complainant). From bare perusal of documents Annexure A-8 and A-9, we are of the view that respondent (complainant) is not a "consumer" of the appellant (O.P.) and the transaction is purely commercial transaction, therefore, the dispute between the parties is not 'consumer dispute' hence the finding recorded by the District Forum, is erroneous and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
16. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant (O.P.) is allowed and impugned order dated 22.01.2014, passed by the District Forum, is set aside. Consequently, the consumer complaint also stands dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (Ms. Heena Thakkar) (D.K. Poddar) (NarendraGupta) President Member Member Member /09/2015 /09/2015 /09/2015 /09/2015