BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE
Dated this the 20th May 2017
PRESENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDERS IN
C.C.No.242/2014
(Admitted on 01.07.2014)
Mr. Ramachandra Puttur,
S/o Late B.V. Hegde,
Aged 59 years, Proprietor,
Falcony Security Consultant,
Kairanna Building,
Opp: Jyothi Talkies,
Balmatta, Mangalore 575001.
….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri MCK)
VERSUS
1. The Assistant General Manager,
Syndicate Bank Regional Office,
Hampankatta, Mangalore 1.
2. The Branch Manager,
Syndicate Bank, Suratkal Branch,
Mangalore.
3. The Branch Manager,
Syndicate Bank, Bengre Branch,
Mangalore.
4. The Branch Manager,
Syndicate Bank, Katipalla Branch,
Mangalore.
…..........OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for the Opposite Parties No.1 to No.4: Sri GKM)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:
The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant against opposite parties alleging deficiency in service claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant claims he was hired by opposite party for rendering security service to opposite party on payment basis. He further claims despite demand opposite party did not make payment for the service rendered and the entire amount agreed by the parties to complainant and that made him to approach this Forum.
2. Opposite party on entering appearance filed version contending amongst others the complainant is a service provider and not a person to receive services from opposite party. As such does not come within the ambit of definition of the term consumer used in the C P Act 1986. Hence seeks dismissal of the complaint.
3. In support of the above complaint Mr. Ramachandra Puttur filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked at Ex.C1 to C8 as detailed in the annexure here below. On behalf of the opposite parties Mr. P Narayana Naidu (RW1) Assistant General Manager, Syndicate Bank, working at Reginal Office, Mangalore also filed affidavit evidence and answered to the interrogatories served on him.
4. In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
Learned counsels for both opposite party filed notes and heard arguments of both sides. We have considered entire case file on record including evidence tendered by the parties and notes of argument of the party. Our findings on the points No.1 in the negative for the following
Point No. (i): Negative
Point No. (ii): Does not survive for consideration
Point No. (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
5. POINT NO. (i): Even as seen from the allegation in the complaint the claim made by the complainant is, as he was engaged by opposite party for providing security on certain fixed amount per month by opposite party. He also claims the agreed amount was not paid by opposite party even after demand and that made him to approach this Forum. First we will refer to the definition of word consumer used in C P Act 1986 Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) reads thus:
d) Consumer means any person who
(i) ….
(ii) (hires or avails of) any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who (hires or avails of) the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payments, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person (but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose)
Thus on going through the above definition of the word consumer it is clear the complainant in our considered view does not fall within the term consumer used in the C P Act 1986 as services were available on payment basis by opposite party and he is service provider and not consumer. Hence we answer point No.1 in the negative.
POINT NO. (ii): In view of our answer to the point No.1 negative this point does not survive and the complaint is devoid of merits. However if the complainant so advised he can seek redressal to his remedy elsewhere.
POINTS No. (iii): Wherefore the following
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 5 dictated by the President to the stenographer in the open court transcribed by her revised and signed on this the 20th May 2017)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(T.C. RAJASHEKAR) (VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Additional Bench, Mangalore Additional Bench, Mangalore
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 Mr. Ramachandra Putur
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.C1: 21.08.2013: Notice issued by the Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Syndicate Bank. (Original)
Ex.C2: 25.07.2013: Office copy of the Notice along with postal Receipt issued by the complainant to the Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank
Ex.C3: 27.04.2013: Office copy of the Notice issued by the Complainant to the General Manger, Syndicate Bank. (Original)
Ex.C4: 13.02.2013: Office copy of the notice issued by the Complainant to the Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank along with postal
Acknowledgement (Original)
Ex.C5: 11.02.2013: Office copy of the Notice along with postal Receipt issued by the complainant to the Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank (Original)
Ex.C6: 21.01.2013: Office copy of the Notice issued by the Complainant to the Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank (Original)
Ex.C7: 30.04.2014: Office copy of the legal notice along with Postal receipt and acknowledgement issued to the opposite party (Original)
Ex.C8: 11.06.2014: Reply of the legal notice dated 30.04.2014 (Original)
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW1 Mr. P Narayana Naidu, Assistant General Manager, Syndicate Bank, working at Reginal Office, Mangalore
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Nil
Dated: 20.05.2017: PRESIDENT
