Kesaba Rohidas

BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR
COMPLAINT CASE NO. 151 OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:
KESABA ROHIDAS, AGED ABOUT 40 YERAS
S/O UPENDRA ROHIDAS, RO/PO- KHINDA, PS- THELKOLAL, DISTRICT-
SAMBALPUR- 768212, ODISSA
…COM-
PLAINANT
VERSUS
NAVEEN MISHRA, S/O KK MISHRA, PRO. S.P. SALES & MARKETING,
SHOP ADDRESS:-
1. S.P. SALES & MARKETING, ADASH MECHANIC NAGAR, BHAMORO,
MAIN ROAD, INDORE, M.P.- 452010, E-MAIL- NAVMIS@YAHOO.CO.IN,
MOB. NO.- 9893181981, 7974116022, 8109081981
2. NAVEEN MISHRA, AF 109, LIG COLONY, INDORE, M.P.- 452010, E-
MAIL- NAVMIS@YAHOO.CO.IN, MOB. NO.- 9893181981, 7974116022,
8109081981
…OPPOSITE
PARTY
INDEX
Sr. no. Documents Pg. No.

1 REPLY ON BEHLAF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
2 PROOF OF SERVICE
FILED THROUGH
ADV. PRAFULL SHARMA
PLACE: Sambalpur
DATE:
BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR
COMPLAINT CASE NO. 151 OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:

KESABA ROHIDAS …COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
NAVEEN MISHRA, S/O KK MISHRA, PRO. S.P. SALES & MARKETING,
SHOP ADDRESS:-
1. S.P. SALES & MARKETING, ADASH MECHANIC NAGAR, BHAMORO,
MAIN ROAD, INDORE, M.P.- 452010, E-MAIL- NAVMIS@YAHOO.CO.IN,
MOB. NO.- 9893181981, 7974116022, 8109081981
2. NAVEEN MISHRA, AF 109, LIG COLONY, INDORE, M.P.- 452010, E-
MAIL- NAVMIS@YAHOO.CO.IN, MOB. NO.- 9893181981, 7974116022,
8109081981
…OPPOSITE
PARTY
REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
I. The present reply is being filed by Mr. Naveen Mishra on behalf of S.P.
Sales & Marketing (S.P. Sales/Opposite Party No.1).
II. The present reply deals with and responds to all the allegations, averments
and submissions made in the present petition, filed by Mr. Kesaba Rohi-
das (the “Petitioners”) seeking interim measures against Opposite Parties.
SUBMISSIONS:
III. The present petition is unfounded in as much as it is based on misleading
narrative of the facts and events as have actually transpired between the
parties herein. The submissions of the are denied in toto as being entirely
incorrect, misconceived and untenable in fact as well as law.
IV.Facts of the case are such: Naveen Mishra is the owner of the S.P. Sales
& Marketing. An order was placed by Complainant i.e., Kesaba Rohidas
for supply of 3500 number 25mm plastic sheet@254 rupees per brick (ex-
cluding GST). An amount of Rs. 10,43,000/- to the Opposite Parties for
supply of the goods. The amount was paid in 5 terms on dates:-
02.02.2022, 02.02.2022, 10.02.2022, 10.02.2022 & 31.12.2022. And due
to unfortunate incidents and circumstances beyond the control of the Op-
posite party the supply cannot be met. And the Opposite party in good
faith have agreed to payback the amount in the terms agreed by the par-
ties.
V. Dispute with regards to Jurisdiction: If at any time any dispute arises
the place of Jurisdiction would be Indore. Which was clearly evident and
mentioned in the bill/s which was signed and agreed by the Complainant
himself. Therefore, it can be concluded that The District Commission
Sambalpur does not have jurisdiction as per Section 34 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019
VI.Terms of Bill are not Unfair: The terms of agreement are not unfair be-
cause any such terms with respect of jurisdiction does not fall within the
definition of Section 2 (46):-”unfair contract" means a contract between
a manufacturer or trader or service provider on one hand, and a con-
sumer on the other, having such terms which cause significant change in
the rights of such consumer, including the following, namely:— (i) re-
quiring manifestly excessive security deposits to be given by a consumer
for the performance of contractual obligations; or
(ii) imposing any penalty on the consumer, for the breach of contract
thereof which is wholly disproportionate to the loss occurred due to such
breach to the other party to the contract; or
(iii) refusing to accept early repayment of debts on payment of applicable
penalty; or
(iv) entitling a party to the contract to terminate such contract unilater-
ally, without reasonable cause; or
(v) permitting or has the effect of permitting one party to assign the con-
tract to the detriment of the other party who is a consumer, without his
consent; or
(vi) imposing on the consumer any unreasonable charge, obligation or
condition which puts such consumer to disadvantage;
Therefore, the Opposite Party is in no lability towards the same.
VII. Recovery of Money/Debt: It is humbly submitted that The Consumer
forum can deal with complaints pertaining to defective goods and defi-
ciency in services only. A simple money claim or claim for re-payment is
not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act and has to be filed in
a regular civil court.
VIII. Good Faith: It is humbly submitted that time and again the Opposite
Parties have always made sure that the differentiated amount is paid in
timely manner. Also out of agreed amount of Rs. 3,97,140/- the Opposite
Parties has refunded an amount of Rs 2,00,000 (in three occasions
through bank as Rs.1,00,00/-, Rs.50,000/- & Rs.50,000/-).
PARA- WISE REPLY:

1. Respondent No. 1 singularly and specifically denies and disputes all the
averments, contentions and grounds raised in the instant petition insofar as
they are inconsistent with the true and complete records of the case. That
no part of t he petition or the averments and allegations made therein shall
deemed to be admitted for mere want of traverse. Without prejudice to the
submissions made hereinabove, and in addition thereto, Respondent No. 1
submits its para- wise reply as hereunder:
2. Re para 1: The contents in as much as they pertain to description of the
details of business and execution of the terms of business and transactions
done in favour of Opposite parties by the Complainant.
3. Re para 2: The contents of this para with respect to facts are not denied
but it is pointed out that during the time of dispute, the Jurisdiction would
be Indore. Which was clearly mentioned in the bill which was signed and
agreed by the Complainant himself.
4. Re para 3: The contents of this paragraph are denied in toto. The Peti-
tioner himself agrees to the fact that there were effective measures taken
by the Opposite Parties in good faith to re-pay the amount and resolve the
issues. Complainant herein have merely made bald/unsubstantiated asser-
tions with respect to deficiency of services on part of the Opposite Party. It
is settled that the burden to make out a case as well as establish the same
against the Opposite Party lies upon the Complainants and thus, any alle-
gations to the contrary cannot be considered in any court of law unless the
plea taken by the Complainants is substantiated with sound evidence pro-
duced by them.
PRAYER:
In the premises of aforesaid facts and circumstances it is therefore most
humbly prayed that Hon’ble Commission may graciously be pleased to
award:
A. To transfer the case to appropriate authority having Jurisdiction i.e., Con-
sumer Forum at Indore.
B. The Nature of this complaint is of civil nature and for recovery of debt
and therefore this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
C. Any other relief(s), which is not prayed, as it deemed fit and proper by the
Hon’ble Commission.
FILED THROUGH
ADV. PRAFULL
SHARMA
PLACE: Sambalpur
DATE:

Kesaba Rohidas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kesaba Rohidas

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kesaba Rohidas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

COMPLAINT CASE NO. 151 OF 2023

Sr. no. Documents Pg. No.

ADV. PRAFULL SHARMA

COMPLAINT CASE NO. 151 OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

PARA- WISE REPLY:

You might also like