ORDER

(Per: Mr. D.K. Tyagi, Member):

This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed by the appellant-complainant against the order dated 12.03.2013 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 178 of 2012.  By the impugned order, the District Forum has dismissed the consumer complaint.  

2.       Briefly stated that facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint are that the complainant’s house is situated at Hira Lal Marg, Rishikesh.  The complainant had made contact with opposite party No. 2 -   Sh. Yashpal Singh, Thekedar, who was working for Nagar Palika in front of the complainant’s shop in connection of dampness in the ceiling of the complainant’s house.  The opposite party No. 2 visited the complainant’s house and inspected the roof of the house.  He advised the complainant that he knows a person, who deals with the work of moisture and dampness at Tehri Dam.  He will also arranged the meeting with that person and also a chemical, which deals with the dampness, shall be provided.  He also advised the complainant that he is busy, therefore, the complainant may take the services from other Thekedar regarding grouting of the ceiling/roof.  The opposite party No. 2 had taken the complainant at opposite party No. 1.  Both of the opposite parties suggested the complainant to purchase 150 liters water proof chemical, which shall be used on the ceiling/roof after removing the plaster of the roof and there after grouting shall be done, so that the dampness shall be removed forever.  They had also suggested that half of the chemical shall be sprinkled and the rest half will be omixed in cement and send on the roof.  In case after this treatment the dampness appear again then they shall refund the money to the complainant.  The opposite party No. 2 also confirmed that the opposite party No. 1 deals with the dampness work and also sells chemical for this work.  He takes responsibility of opposite party No. 1.  The complainant agreed for the same and grouting work of the roof was done.  After sometime rain started and the dampness in the roof and ceiling had increased and water oozes out from the roof.  Yellow coloured chemical also came out and the walls of the house became yellow in colour.  The complainant met the opposite parties and they inspected the complainant’s house and admitted that there is a complaint in the water proof chemical.  The opposite parties had also promised to refund Rs. 16,000/- in the month of August, 2011.  Even then they did not pay the money to the complainant.  One Sh. Jai Prakash Agarwal had also come with the opposite parties at that time, therefore, in presence of Sh. Jai Prakash Agarwal and complainant’s wife, the opposite parties wrote an agreement in which the opposite party No. 1 promised to pay Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant and opposite party No. 2 had promised to pay Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant in the month of August, 2011. After August, 2011, the complainant demanded the money from the opposite parties, then they demanded the water proof chemical before any demand. They have also threatened to the complainant that the complainant may take any legal action, if he so desires.  The complainant again took services of other persons for grouting work on the roof of the complainant’s house.  The complainant came to know from some source that one of the brother of opposite party No. 2 works in the water department and a chemical, which is used for purification of water, sells indicating it as water proof chemical.  Both of the opposite parties are fraud and doing such business to defraud the people.  Thereafter, the complainant sent a notice to the opposite parties.  The opposite party No. 2 refused to accept the notice and opposite party No. 1 received the notice, but had not replied the same.  The complainant had filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun for a sum of Rs. 16,000/- with regard to the cost of water proof chemical, Rs. 60,000/- towards grouting work done and            Rs. 4,00,000/- for mental and economical loss.

3.       The opposite party No. 1-Sh. Anil Agarwal has not filed any written statement before the District Forum, therefore, the case was proceed ex-parte against the opposite party No. 1. 

4.       The opposite party No. 2-Sh. Yashpal Singh Thekedar has filed the written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the contents of para 1 of the consumer complaint are denied for want of knowledge.  The contention of para 2 are also denied for want of knowledge.  Strict burden of proving the contents of the same rests upon the complainant.  The entire story being set up by the complainant is denied for want of knowledge and the lack of involvement of the answering opposite party. It is denied that the answering opposite party offers consultancy services to anyone and is himself only a government contractor. It is denied that the answering opposite party advised the complainant to go somewhere to some other contractor or gave him advice or charged for the same.  The complainant is an educated adult and not need any advice from anyone and is fully responsible for his own actions.  The complainant is not a consumer as far as the answering opposite party is concerned.  The entire complaint against the answering opposite party is frivolous, fraudulent and vehemently denied.  The contents of para 4 and 5 of the complaint are denied.  The answering opposite party did not promise to make any payment to the complainant or entered into an agreement.  The signatures of answering opposite party on the said document are forged.  Even otherwise, the answering opposite party was under no legal obligation to pay anything or make any such promise. The complainant is not a consumer of the answering opposite party.  The allegations that answering opposite party threatened the complainant are false and baseless.  Strict burden of proving the contents of the same rests upon the complainant.  It is clarified that allegations made by the complainant are wrong and vehemently denied.  The allegations are criminal in nature and as such are not tenable in the consumer court.  The complainant never filed a complaint before the police authorities.  No notice was ever served upon the answering opposite party.  The complainant has suppressed material facts from the District Forum and as such is not entitled to any relief from the District Forum.  The relationship between the complainant and answering opposite party is not that of a service provider and a consumer. In additional pleas, the answering opposite party has pleaded that the complaint is based on mere surmises, conjectures and as such is not maintainable.  That the consumer complaint is based on criminal allegations and is liable to be rejected, as the Consumer Fora cannot look into the same.  The answering opposite party never provided any service to the complainant and the complainant never paid any amount to the answering opposite party for the so-called advice.  The so-called signatures shown by the complainant of the answering opposite party are an act of forgery.  The answering opposite party denied those signatures.  Thus, the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed.   

5.       The District Forum on an appreciation of the material on record, has dismissed the consumer complaint No. 178 of 2012 vide order dated 12.03.2013 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant has filed the present appeal.

6.       We have heard the appellant-Sh. Gauri Shankar in person and learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and also perused the material on record.  None is present on behalf of respondent No. 1 despite service through refusal of notice.

7.       Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has submitted that the respondent No. 2 is a Government contractor and he had not provided any service to the complainant-appellant. He had only suggested the appellant to take service from the other person. Therefore, the appellant is not a consumer of respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 is not a service provider to the appellant. Therefore, there is no relation of service provider and consumer in this case.  Thus, the consumer complaint is not maintainable against the respondent No. 2 in any manner. 

8.       The appellant-Sh. Gauri Shankar himself argued before this Commission that on advice of respondent No. 2, he had purchased water proof chemical from respondent No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for chemical treatment in the roof of his house. Rs. 1,000/- was also charged from the appellant by respondent No. 2.  Even after chemical treatment, the roof of the appellant’s house again started leakage. The appellant also argued that the respondents had promised to refund the money to the appellant for which an agreement was prepared and both of the respondents had signed over it.  After non-compliance of the terms and conditions of the agreement, the appellant sent a notice to the respondents, which was received by respondent No. 2 but no reply was made. The appellant has argued that the District Forum has passed the order with material irregularity in favour of respondents, even in the absence of respondent No. 1 and the District Forum has also not appreciated the evidence filed by him.

9.       From the perusal of the order passed by the District Forum and the evidence filed by the appellant on record and submissions raised by both of the parties, we are of the view that there is no signature of the appellant over so called agreement (paper No. 14) filed by the appellant.  This agreement has been written on a plain paper, but no evidence has been filed by the appellant that so-called agreement was written in the handwriting of respondent No. 1-Sh. Anil Agarwal.  Respondent No. 2 has categorically denied in his written statement that he never provided any service to the appellant and so-called signatures of respondent No. 2 shown by the appellant, are an act of forgery.  There is no receipt or cash-memo or bill of purchase of water proof chemical, produced before the District Forum, therefore, the appellant has not proved by any document that he purchased 150 liters of water proof chemical from one Sh. Anil Agarwal, for which he paid Rs. 15,000/-.  There is also no evidence on record that with the help of water proof chemical, the respondent No. 1 had done any grouting work of the roof of appellant’s house.  It appears that the appellant had engaged some other person/firm named M/s Ahinsha & Co., who had issued two bills for grouting work for which there is no concern with the respondents.  There is also no receipt of any amount given to the respondent No. 2 by the appellant. Respondent No. 2 or respondent No. 1 have not done grouting work in the appellant’s house, therefore, respondents are not service providers and the appellant does not come within the definition of “consumer” in any way. 

10.     The District Forum has properly considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and passed a reasoned order, which does not call for any interference.  The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 

11.     For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed.  Impugned judgment and order dated 12.03.2013 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 178 of 2012 is hereby confirmed.   No order as to costs.