AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE case of the complainant is that it entered into an agreement for selling Agency with the opposite party for its products in the States of Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Tripura and Upper Assam on commission basis. THE complainant sold a consignment of goods to the opposite party for which the opposite party issued three cheques aggregating to Rs. 29,527/- in favour of the complainant. THEy said three cheques were bounced by the banker of the opposite party for insufficient fund with the Bank lying in his credit. THE complainant served notice under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and also made numerous correspondences urging to opposite parties to make payment but the opposite party did not make payment.
IT is further alleged that there is a vast demand of the products of the complainant in the Hill State area of North-Eastern Region of India and on the basis of said potentiality the opposite party assured a minimum turn over of Rs. 3 lakhs per month for the entire territories allotted to him. Due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party it has caused loss of business to the complainant, he is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 5,50,000/- in addition to get an amount of Rs. 29,527/- together with interest @ 24% per annum. Accordingly the complainant sought for relief''s as per prayer. The opposite party in its written statement has denied all material allegations in the petition of complaint and also challenged the maintainability of the proceeding before the Consumer Redressal Forum. JUDGMENT
The dispute raised by the complainant is that it has not received the value for the goods sold to the opposite party and the three cheques given by the opposite party for value of the goods have been bounced and due to activities of the opposite party the complainant has suffered loss to a great extent.
TO our views firstly the complainant is basically vendor not the buyer, so the complainant is not covered under definition under Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act. Section 2(d) of the Act provides "who buys goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised ...." Here the complainant does not buy goods but sells the goods, secondly the Section 2(1)(o) of the C.P. Act, 1986 defines "service which means service of any description is made available to potential users ...." The dispute in question relates to sale and purchase of goods, so question of hiring service by the users of the goods sold by the complainant does not arise. We are of opinion that dispute about bouncing of the 3 cheques could have been redressed in criminal action as per provisions of Section 138 of N.I. Act and other disputes about damages suffered for the loss of business by the seller/complainant due to actions of opposite party could be redressed in a Civil Court Hence we dismiss the complaint with no order as to the costs. Complaint dismissed.