State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M.V. Srinivasa vs M/S. Amalgamated Bean Coffee Trading ... on 18 October, 2024
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. First Appeal No. A/130/2013 ( Date of Filing : 01 Feb 2013 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 05/01/2013 in Case No. CC/322/2011 of District Chikmagalur) 1. M/s. Amalgamated Bean Coffee Trading Company Ltd., K.M. Road, Chikmagalur 577101 Rep. by its Authorised Signatory Sadanand Poojary 2. Kumar Hegde Agent of M/s. Amalgamated Bean Coffee Trading Company Ltd., K.M. Road, Chikmagalur 577101 . ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Srinivasa M.V. S/o. Veerappa Gowda, Aged 56 years, R/of Megaramakki Estate, Megaramakki Post, Balehonnur, N.R. Pura Tq., Chikmagalur . ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/439/2013 ( Date of Filing : 02 Apr 2013 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 05/01/2013 in Case No. CC/322/2011 of District Chikmagalur) 1. M.V. Srinivasa S/o. Veerapa Gowda, R/at Megaramakki Estate, Megaramakki Post, Balehonnur, N.R. Pura Tq., Chikmagalur Dist. . ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. M/s. Amalgamated Bean Coffee Trading Co. Ltd., K.M. Road, Chikmagalur, Chikmagalur Dist. 577101 Rep. by its Senior General Manager . 2. Kumar Hegde, Agent Otto Bock India Pvt. Ltd M/s. Amalgamated Bean Coffee Trading Co. Ltd., K.M. Road, Chikmagalur, Chikmagalur Dist. 577101 . ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 18 Oct 2024 Final Order / Judgement BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH) DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 PRESENT SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER APPEAL Nos. 130/2013 & 439/2013 APPEAL NO.130/2013
1. M/s Amalgamated Bean Coffee Trading Company Limited, K.M. Road, Chikmagalur 577 101, Represented by its Authorized Signatory Mr. Sadanand Poojary.
... Appellant/s
2. Sri Kumar Hegde, Agent of M/s Amalgamated Bean Coffee Trading Company Limited, K.M.Road, Chikmagalur 577 101.
(By Sri Arvind Kamath, Advocate) V/s Sri M.V. Srinivasa, S/o Veerappa Gowda, Aged about 56 years, Resident of Megaramakki Estate, Megaramakki Post, Balehonnur, N.R. Pura Taluk, Chikmagalur.
(By Sri Rohith Gowda, Advocate) ... Respondent/s APPEAL NO.439/2013 Sri M.V. Srinivasa, S/o Veerappa Gowda, Major in age, R/at Megaramakki Estate, Megaramakki Post, Balehonnur, N.R. Pura Taluk, Chikmagalur Dist.
(By Sri Rohith Gowda, Advocate) ... Appellant/s V/s
1. M/s Amalgamated Bean Coffee Trading Company Limited, K.M. Road, Chikmagaur, Chikmagalur Dt.- 577101, Represented by its Senior General Manager.
... Respondent/s
2. Sri Kumar Hegde, Agent, Otto Bock India Pvt. Ltd., M/s Amalgamated Bean Coffee Trading Company Limited, K.M.Road, Chikmagalur, Chikmagalur Dt.- 577101, (By Sri Sharath Chandra, Advocate) COMMON ORDER BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Both complainant/Opposite Parties have filed these two appeals being aggrieved by the Order dt. 05.01.2013 passed in CC.No.322/2011 on the file of Dakshina Kannada District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chikmagalur. To avoid duplication of work, both these appeals are taken up together and are being disposed of by a common order.
2. The crux of the case are as hereunder;
It is the case of the complainant that he being a coffee planter and agent had sold certain amount of coffee beans to the Opposite Parties, but, the entire consideration amount was not paid. Hence, the complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice has filed a complaint before the District Commission. The District Commission after trial allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Parties to pay the market value of the coffee beans as on 11.10.2011 after excluding the amount already paid to the tune of Rs.2,12,816/-. Aggrieved by the said Order, the Opposite Parties preferred the appeal No.130/2013 to set aside the Order passed by the District Commission and the complainant also preferred an Appeal No.439/2013 that the prayer was not considered and submits that the District Commission has failed to appreciate the pleadings of the complainant that 6000 kgs of coffee beans has not returned by the Opposite Parties. Hence, prayed for modification of the order.
3. Heard the arguments of both parties.
4. Perused the appeal memorandum and certified copy of the impugned order. We noticed that the transactions between both parties are not falls within the definition of the 'Consumer Dispute' under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Here we noticed that the complainant being a coffee planter he sells the products and become a seller as per the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. On the other hand, the Opposite Parties are also sellers who in turn sell in retail. The transactions between the parties are seller and seller transaction and there is no relationship of consumer and service provider and the District Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the commercial transaction. If at all any dispute arose between the parties with respect to the commercial transaction, they are at liberty to approach the appropriate authority for redressal, but, the District Commission fails to notify that there is no consumer dispute itself in the complaint filed by the complainant. As such, no need to discuss on merits. Hence, the following;
O R D E R The Appeal Nos.130/2013 and 439/2013 are dismissed. Consequently, the complaint is also dismissed.
The amount in deposit in Appeal No.130/2013 shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission for disbursement of the same to the Opposite Party/s.
Keep the original Order in Appeal No.130/2013 and a copy of the same in A.No.439/2013.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.
Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER KCS* [HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar] PRESIDING MEMBER
[HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi] MEMBER