STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Revision Petition No.RP/24/108 Vibhuti Alloy Steel Traders through Mr.Kashinath Nabaji Dhakane Address Plot No.D-41, MIDC Shendra ....... Revision Petitioner/

Aurangabad 431154 org.complainant Versus Sanmati Auto Com.Pvt.Ltd.

through Shri Amit Aappaso Bargale Address-Plot No.83 & 84 Shree Laxmi Industrial Co-op.Estate Sector-A, Tal.Hatkanangale …Respondent/Org. OP District Kolhapur BEFORE: Justice S.P.Tavade – President Vijay C.Premchandani – Member Advocate Ganesh Dahale for Revision petitioner.

PRESENT:

Advocate Prasanna P.Kulkarni for respondent.

FINAL ORDER (Dt.19/03/2025)

Per Hon’ble Vijay C.Premchandani – Member

1. The revision petitioner has filed the present revision petition against the impugned order passed by the Ld.District Consumer Commission, Kolhapur as on 14/07/2024 in consumer complaint no.CC/23/117 on the application moved by the present petitioner as on 03/05/2023 stating that the complainant is not ‘Consumer’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The said application was dismissed. Being aggrieved with the alleged impugned order, the present petitioner has filed the revision petition.

BRIEF FACTS:

2. In the original complaint it is stated that, the opponent in consumer complaint for trading of iron scrap material approached to the revision petitioner for purchase of scrap material through Mr.Shriram Shankar Kulkarni.

Mr.S.S.Kulkarni also purchased the scrap material from the Revision petitioner in his company namely, M/s.S.S.Industries and having outstanding balance of Rs.7,17,310/-. That, Mr. S.S. Kulkarni and Opponent assured to revision Petitioner that, the Revision petitioner can deduct the balance amount from the opponent company Rs.1,00,000/- for per delivery. That, the Revision Petitioner supplied the iron scrap material as per the term and agreement to the opponent company and deducted the balance amount of M/s S.S. Industries and excess payment of the opponent company is duly deposited in its bank and also telephonically confirmed this fact to the opponent and Mr.Shriram S.

Kulkarni.

3. Ignoring this fact, with ill intention to harass by way of financially and mentally, the opponent has filed the false complaint against the Revision Petitioner before Hon'ble Redressal Commission Maharashtra, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur, bearing Consumer complaint no.CC/2023/117.

4. The Revision Petitioner appeared before the Hon'ble Commission and after reading the complaint, Revision Petitioner has filed the application for dismissal of the complaint as the opponent is having business identity and for profit making company. Moreover, the purchase of Iron scrap Material in wholesale for trading purpose and not for to consume the goods. Moreover, it is also argued before the Hon'ble Commission that for the Iron trading, the opponent has taken Udyam Registration Certificate to run his business and for trial of this matter, the Commission is not having the jurisdiction, this fact is not considered by the Hon'ble Commission.

5. The present revision petitioner has prayed that the petition may be allowed by setting aside the impugned order passed by the Ld.District Consumer Commission, Kolhapur and dismiss the consumer complaint accordingly.

GROUNDS FOR THE REVISION PETITION:

6. The Ld.District Consumer Commission has not considered the facts that the original complainant in consumer complaint is not a ‘consumer’ of the present petitioner as defined u/sec.2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The present revision petitioner submitted that the contention of the petitioner was not taken into consideration by the Ld.District Consumer Commission, thereby the heavy losses are likely to be occurred to the present revision petitioner by virtue of said impugned order. The said impugned order is bad in the eyes of law. That the impugned order is passed without any proper reasoning as well as the same is passed without considering the heavy losses likely to be oc