DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 6^th  day of  May  2016 

Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R,  President

           : Sri. V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member

CC/56/2016

Veerankutty.C.T                                                       :        Complainant   

S/o.Alikutty,

Chankkingal Thaliyanthodi,

Panamanna Post, Ottapalam

  Vs

Ananganadi Panchayath Secretary

Officer in charge of Building Tax,

Panamanna P.O. Ottapalam,                                     :        Opposite party

                                                      O R D E R

By Smt.Shiny.P.R, President

          Complaint filed for getting excess amount of Rs.56,952/- which was collected by opposite party as building tax for 6 rooms of the complainant for the year 2009 to 2016 and for getting compensation for the deficiency in service  from opposite party. 

Heard on admission

It is the settled position of law that if the transaction is related to business activity, it falls in the category of commercial purpose and which has been taken out from the purview of Consumer Protection Act. Here the complainant is letting the six rooms for third parties. The above rooms are not used for his personal use. It is purely a business activity. Hence we are of the view that complainant will not come under the purview of consumer as defined under the consumer protection act.

           Pronounced in the open court on this the  6^th  day of May, 2016.

                                                                                        Sd/-Sd/-                                                                                                            Shiny.P.R                                                                                

                           President

                            Sd/-

              V.P.Anantha Narayanan

                        Member